JAGANNATH versus JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 892 · Decided: 20-01-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
·r ht V ict-Chan-
rellor, Utkal 
Clniversity 
and Others. 
v. 
S. K. Ghosh 
and Others. 
Bose]. 
1954 
_7anuary 20. 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
held in April, 1951, shall be deemed 
passed that examination and shall not 
appear again in Anatomy." 
to have duly 
be required to 
The appeal is allowed. The High Court's order is set 
aside 
and the petition for mandamus filed before it is 
dismissed, but without 
costs. 
There will be no order 
about costs in this "court either. 
Appeal allowed. 
Agent for the appellants: Raiinder Narain. 
Agent for the respondents Nos. 1-8, 10-16, 18-23 
and 25-34: S. P. Varma. 
JAGANNATH 
v. 
JASW ANT SINGH AND OTHERS. 
[MEHR 
CHAND 
MAHAJAN. C.J., 
MUKHERJEA, 
S. R. DAs, 
VIVIAN 
BosE and GHULAM 
HASAN. JJ.j 
Representation 
of the People Act (XL/II of 1951), s. 82-
Election petition-Non-compliance with the provisions 
of s. 82-
Proper party omitted frorn the list of respondents-Defect u1hcther 
fatal. 
Held, (i) that non-con1pliance with the provisions 
of s. 82 
of the Representation of the 
People Ac_t, 
1951 
(XLIII of 1951), 
and the omission of a proper party from the list of respondents is 
not fatal and the tribunal is entitled to deal \Vith 
the tnatter in 
accordance with the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure which 
have been ma<le expressly applicable; 
. 
(ii) that it is one of 
the rules of 
construction that a provi-
sion similar to the 
one in s. 82 is not mandatory unless 
non-
compliance \Vith it is made penal. 
Order XXXIV, r. l, of the Code of Civil Procedure, referred 
to. 
General 
principles 
governing the 
decision of election peti-
tions discussed. 
C1v1L APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTJON : 
Civil 
Appeal No. 
100 of 1953. 
Appeal by 
special leave from the Judgment and 
Order, dated the 27th November, 1952, of the High 
Court of Judicature, Punjab, 
Circuit 
Bench at Delhi 
in Civil 
Writ 
No. 65-D of 1952 arising out of the 
, 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
893 
Judgment and Order, <lated the 11th November, 1952, 
of the Election Tribunal at Delhi in. Election Petition 
No. 10 of 1952. 
N. C. Chatterjee (A. N. Sinha, with him) for the 
appellant. 
S. P. Sinha (R .. Patnaik, with 
him) for 
the 
respondent. 
1954. 
January 20. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
MAHAJAN C. J .-This is an appeal by special leave 
against the decision of 
the Delhi Election Tribunal, 
dated 
the 11th November, 1952, 
in Election Petition 
No. 10 of 1952. 
The appellant Jagan Nath was elected a member of 
the Delhi State Legislative Assembly from Constituency 
No. 25 (Roshanara) of the Delhi State. 
The polling in 
this constitueQcy 
took 
place 
on 
the 
14th 
January, 
1952. 
On the 26th April, 1952, which was the last 
date under the law for the presentation of an election 
petition, 
Jaswant 
Singh (respondent No. 1) presented 
such a petition before the Secretary of the Election 
Commission at New Delhi challenging the election, of 
the appellant and contesting the order of the Return-
ing Officer rejecting his nomination 
paper. 
In the 
petition he impleaded as respondents, Brahma Sarup, 
Ram Prashad Poddar and the appellant, Jagan Nath, 
but he omitted 
to implead, as required by section 82 · 
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Baijnath, 
-0ne 
of the candidates, 
whose nomination 
had been 
accepted 
but 
who 
had withdrawn 
his candidature 
.subsequently. 
On the 14th July, 1952, the Election Commissioner 
appointed an Election Tribunal comprising 
respond-
ents 5 to 7. 
This appointment was published in the 
Gazette of India on the 26th 
July, 1952, and the 
election petition after due publication 
was referred to 
the tribunal. 
On the 26th 
August, 1952, which was 
the 
first 
date of hearing before the tribunal, the 
<1 ppellant 
raised 
a preliminary 
objection 
that the 
omission to implead Baijnath, a duly nominated candi-
date as a respondent in the petition was fatal to its 
1954 
Jagan Nath 
v. 
Jaswant Singh 
, and Others. 
1954 
Jagan Nath 
v. 
Jaswant Singh 
and Others. 
.\fahajan C. J. 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
maintainability. 
The petitioner contended that 
Baij. 
nath was neither a necessary nor 
a proper party and 
that in any event the non-joinder of a party was not 
fatal 
to 
the petition 
in view of the provisions of 
Order I, rule 9, Civil Procedure Code. In the alter-
native, it was claimed that if it was considered that he 
was a necessary or a proper party, permission may be 
given to the petitioner to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.