LexPONNALA LAKSHMALAH versus KOMMURI PRATAP REDDY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 851 PONNALA LAKSHMALAH v. KOMMURI PRATAP REDDY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4993 of 2012) JULY 6, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.J A B Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s. 83 and proviso to s. 83(1) - Election petition - Returned candidate seeking its dismissal in Jimine on the ground that it did not C disclose cause ·of action - High Court refusing to dismiss the petition in limine - On appeal, new plea that the petition was liable to be dismissed as it was not supported by affidavit in terms of proviso to s. 83(1) - Held: High Court was right in refusing to dismiss the petition in limine - The petition o discloses a cause of action and gives rise to triable issues - The petition also contained statement of material facts as required u/s. 83 - The plea of absence of affidavit in terms of proviso to s. 83(1) cannot be permitted to be raised before Supreme Court for the first time - Also, the absence of E affidavit in a given format by itself does not cause any prejudice to the returned candidate and the defect is curable - Breach of proviso to s. 83(1) is not a valid ground for dismissal of an election petition at the threshold - The requirement of filing an affidavit in given format should not F be exalted to the status of a statutory mandate, by a judicial interpretation - Format of affidavit is not a matter of substance - Jn view of the fact that electoral process is vulnerable to misuse, the courts should not adopt a technical approach towards resolution of electoral disputes - Code of Civil G Procedure, 1908 - Or. VII r. 11 - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - r. 94 (1) rlw. Form 25 - Plea - New plea - Interpretation of Statute. Election petition was filed against the returned 851 H 852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A candidate on the ground that there was variance between total number of votes polled and votes counted. The petition was contested. High Court refused to dismiss the petition in limine holding that the petition disclosed a cause of action and gave rise to triable issues. B In appeal to this court the appellant (returned candidate) contended that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds that it was deficient as it did not disclose material facts and particulars; and that the C petition was not accompanied by an affidavit in Form 25 terms of proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act, as the same was mandatory. Dismissing the appeal, the Court o HELD: 1.1 There is no error in the order passed by the High Court refusing to dismiss the petition in limine on the ground that the same discloses no cause of action. The averments made in the election petition if taken to be factually correct, as they ought to for E purposes of determining whether a case for exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been made out, disclose a cause of action. The High Court did not, therefore, commit any error much less an error resulting in miscarriage of justice, to warrant interference by this F Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 8) [865-E-G] 1.2 Courts are competent to dismiss petitions not only on the ground that the same do not comply with the provisions of Sections 81, 82 & 117 of the Representation G of the People Act, 1951 but also on the ground that the same do not disclose any cause of action. The expression "cause of action" has not been defined either in the Civil Procedure Code or elsewhere and is more easily understood than precisely defined. While H examining whether a plaint or an election petition PONNALA LAKSHMALAH v. KOMMURI PRATAP 853 REDDY & ORS. discloses a cause of action, the Court has a full and A comprehensive view of the pleading. !Averments made in I the plaint or petition cannot be read out of context or in isolation. They must be taken in totality for a true and proper understanding of the case set up by the plaintiff. [Paras 3 and 4] [862-E-G; 863-C-D] B Shri Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia (1977) 1 SCC 511 :1976 (2) SCR 246; Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 760: 2005 (3) SCR 1037;Liverpool and London S.P. and I. Asson. Ltd. v. M. V c SeaSuccess I. and Anr. (2004) 9 SCC 512: 2003 (5) Suppt SCR 851 - relied on. Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr. (2006) 6 SCC207: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 80; H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamyand Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 21
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.