KALYAN SINGH CHOUHAN versus C.P. JOSHI

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 216 · Decided: 24-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 216 
KALYAN SINGH CHOUHAN 
v. 
C.P. JOSHI 
(Civil Appeal No. 870 of 2011) 
JANUARY 24, ·2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
c 
Election petition - Trial and adjudication of - Held: The 
D 
procedure provided for trial of civil suits under CPC is not 
applicable in its entirety to the trial of election petition -
T~ 
procedure prescribed in CPC applies to election trial with 
flexibility and only as a guidelines. 
Representation of People Act, 1951 - ss. 80, 81, 
100(1)(d)(iii) and s.97 - Election petition - Right of a party to 
lead evidence - Elections held to constitute State Legislative 
Assembly- Allegation that 10 votes were cast by imposters 
and thus, 10 tendered votes cast under the Rules - Appellant 
E declared elected - Election petition filed by respondent before 
High Court - Appellant fifed written statement - Later filed 
application to summon list of all tendered votes - High Court 
rejected the application - On appeal, held: The pleadings in 
the election petition related only to 6 tendered votes - There 
F was no reference in respect of the remaining 4 tendered votes 
either in the election petition or in the written statement filed 
by the appellant - In absence of any Recrimination petition, 
the appellant could not be permitted to lead evidence on a 
fact not in issue - Also, in the application, no reason nor 
G justification was given by the appellant for summoning of the 
other 4 tendered votes - Therefore, the High Court rightly did 
not allow the appellant to lead evidence which was no1 in the 
line of the pleadings - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 -
Rule 42. 
H 
216 
KALYAN SINGH CHOUHAN v. C.P. JOSHI 
217 
Pleadings - Jurisdiction of the Court to grant relief -
A 
Held: A decision of a case cannpt be based on grounds 
outside the pleadings of the parties. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XIV, Rule 1-
Fratning of issues - Object and purpose of - Held: The object. 
of framing issues is to ascertain/ shorten the area: of dispute . B 
and pinpoint the points required to be determined by the court 
- /tis the issues fixed and not the pleadings that guide the 
parties in the matter of adducing. evidence - It is neither 
desirable nor required for the court to frame an issue not 
arising on the pleadings - The Court should not decide a suit C 
on a matter/point on which no issue has been framed. 
Elections were held to constitute the 13th Legislative 
Assembly for the State of Rajasthan. During the process 
of polling, there were allegations that in .respect of the 
D 
constituency in question, at least 10 votes were cast by 
imposters and thus, 10 tendered votes were cast under 
Rule 42 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The 
appellant was declared elected from the said 
constituency by a margin of one vote. 
E 
The respondent, an unsuccessful candidCJte, filed 
election petition before the High Court under Sections 80, 
· 81, 100(1 )(d)(iii) and Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of 1951 Act, inter-
alia, alleging: (i) that the name of the appe.llant's wife was 
registered at two places in the electoral rolls of the 
F 
constituency and hence she had cast two votes in the 
election; and (ii) that six (6) tendered votes cast in the 
election must be counted and the six (6) votes originally 
I 
pollerl against the tendered votes must be rejected. The 
G I 
appellar;~ filed written statement contesting the election 
petition. Arll'" framing of the issues, the appellant flied an 
application to summon inter a.lia the list of all tendered 
votes. The High Court rejected the application on the 
ground that it was not permissible to summon tendered 
H 
2.18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A votes in respect of which none of the parties had taken 
the pleadings nor an issue had been framed in respect 
of those tendered votes and, thus, it was not permissible 
to lead any evidence on the fact which is not in issue; 
more so, on the ground of delay, as the application had 
B been filed after framing of the issues. 
In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for 
consideration was whether the result of the election had 
been materially affected and, therefore, once the appellant 
C raised his statutory right to lead evidence, in order to 
prevent miscarriage of justice, it was necessary that all 
the tendered votes were summoned and taken into 
consideration i.e. be counted. 
0 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The trial of an elect

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