Kailash vs Lalit
2022 Latest Caselaw 8361 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9251/2021

Kailash S/o Shri Heera Lal Sevak, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Sathiya Road Charbhuja Ghadhbor, Tehsil-Ghadhbor, District- Rajsamand.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Lalit S/o Shri Ganeshlal Sevak, Resident Of Hanuman Mandir Ke Pass, Ghadhbor, Tehsil-Ghadhbor, District- Rajsamand.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector, Rajsamand, Tehsil And District Rajsamand.

3. District Election Officer (Zila Parishad), Rajsamand, Tehsil And District-Rajsamand.

4. Returnning Officer, Panchayat Samiti-Kumbhalgarh, District-Rajsamand.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Jai Kishan Bhaiya
For Respondent(s)        :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment / Order

28/06/2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 02.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the

application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11

C.P.C. has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the

election petition filed by the respondent, the petitioner has

preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on certain

grounds. He further submits that learned Trial Court has not

(2 of 3) [CW-9251/2021]

considered the matter properly and has erroneously rejected the

application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11. He

also submits that along with the memo of election petition, certain

documents were annexed, which were not signed by the

respondent and, thus there is inherent defect in the election

petition itself. He, therefore, prays that the order passed by the

learned Trial Court on 02.03.2021 may be quashed and the

application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 may

be allowed by rejecting the election petition. He has relied upon

the judgment dated 05.04.2021 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.11327/2020 (Hathi Singh Vs. Bheraram).

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the order dated 02.03.2021.

The sole contention of the petitioner that the documents

annexed with the election petition were not signed by the election

petitioner is not borne out from the record as in the order dated

02.03.2021, learned Trial Court has very specifically held that

along with the election petition, no document was annexed and

therefore, there is no question of affixing the signatures on the

same. For the brevity, the reasoned order of the Trial Court dated

02.03.2021 is reproduced herewith:-

"मैंने उभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्तागण की बहस पर मनन किया एवं पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। प्रार्थी ने विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध यह चु नाव याचिका जो प्रस्तुत की है उस चु नाव याचिका में सत्यापन स्वयं प्रार्थी द्वारा दिनां क 17.12.2020 को किया हुआ है तथा चु नाव याचिका के समर्थन में स्वयं प्रार्थी का शपथ पत्र भी प्रस्तुत है तथा किसी शिडयूल या एनेक्सर को याचिका में वर्णित नही ं किया हुआ है , ऐसी सूरत में पंचायती राज निर्वाचन नियम के उक्त नियम के तहत जब शिड्यूल या एनेक्सर चु नाव याचिका के संलग्नक के रूप में नही ं है और जिनका कोई हवाला नही ं दिया हुआ है तो उन पर यदि याचिकाकर्ता के हस्ताक्षर नही ं है तो महज चु नाव याचिका अंतर्गत आदे श 07 नियम 11 जाब्ता दीवानी के तहत खारिज किये जाने का कोई आधार उत्पन्न नही ं

(3 of 3) [CW-9251/2021]

होता है क्योंकि वाद कारण अं कित किया हुआ है , इसलिये यह प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नही ं है ।"

In view of the categoric findings arrived at by the Trial Court,

the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner

has no application.

Thus, in view of the observations made by the Trial Court, I

find no infirmity in the order dated 02.03.2021, the writ petition is

therefore, bereft of merit and the same is dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

2-Shahenshah/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)