MANOHAR JOSHI versus BHAURAO RAGOJI PATIL THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 14-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MANOHAR JOSHI 
v. 
BHAURAO RAGOJI PATIL TIIROUGH 
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 
JANUARY 14,. 1992 
[S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND N. D. OJHA, JJ.J 
A 
B 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 112 and 117-
Election Petition-Application for substitution-Presentation of-Deposit of 
security amount/or cos1-When to be made-Order of substitution-Court to 
C 
specify amount of deposit or give reasons if deposit is not required. 
One 'B' filed an Election Petition challenging the appellant's 
election as M.L.A. On the death of 'B' the"Election Petition abated, and 
the same was published in accordance with Section 112 (2) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. Upon the said publication, four 
D 
applications including those of the Respondents were rated before the 
High Court for substitution in place of the deceased petitioner. The High 
Court allowed the two applications by the Respondents and dismissed 
the other two applications. 
Tb appellant-M.L.A. bas preferred the present appeal by special 
E 
leave, against the High Court's order substituting the Respondents in the 
Election Petition. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the High Court 
was wrong in holding that the question of providing security deposit for 
F 
costs would arise only after an order for substitution is made; and that 
the respondent could have been directed to be substituted only after they 
had actually deposi!ed the amount or security. 
On behalf or the respondents, it was contended that when four 
applications bad been made for substitution an order had first to be G 
passed indicating the names of the applicants who were to be substituted 
and only thereafter the security amount could be deposited. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in holding that simultane-
H 
31 
1C--
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 1 S. C. R. 
A 
ous deposit of any amount as security for costs at the time of presenta-
r 
tion of the applications for substitution was not necessary. On a plain 
reading of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the 
said requirement is applicable at the time of presenting an Election 
Petition. An application for substitution made under sub-section (3) of 
Section 112 consequent upon the death of the election petitioner cannot 
B 
be put at par with the presentation of an election petition. [34FG] 
~ 
~ 
2. The right to apply to be substituted accrues on fulfilment of two 
conditions, viz. that the person making the application should be one 
who might himself have been a petitioner and that the application is 
' 
made within fourteen days of the publication made under sub-section (2) 
x I-
c 
of Section 112. He, however, becomes entitled to be substituted only upon 
compliance with the conditions, if any, as to security. The applications 
made by the respondents could not, therefore, be dismissed on the 
ground that no amount was deposited as security for costs at the ~ime of 
presenting the said applications. [35A-C] 
D 
3. While considering an application for substitution court has to 
consider as to whether any deposit is to be made or not as security for 
costs and if it is to be made what is the amount which has to be 
deposited. If the Court comes to the conclusion on the facts of a given 
case that no amount is to be deposited as security for costs an order of 
4 
E 
subscription simpliciter would be sufficient. The fact that no deposit as 
. . 
'· 
security is to be made with reason therefor would, however; have to be 
simultaneously stated in the order of substitution. On the other hand, if 
the Court comes to the conclusion that some amount has to be deposited 
by the applicants who are proposed to be substituted, as security for 
I;._ 
costs, the amount should be simultaneously specified in the order of 
F. 
substitution and the entitlement of such applicant to be substituted 
should be made subject to compliance with the condition of depositing 
A-
the amount so.specified. [3SE-GJ 
-{ 
4. In the instant case, the respondents were directed to deposit the 
security amount, in the same order permitting their substitution, and it 
G 
was deposited the very next day. In view of this circumstance, even 
though the order appealed against may not be said to be in strict 
compliance with the requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 112 of the 
Act, the order is not interfered with. [3SH; 36A, BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 112 (NCE

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