R.K. ROJA versus U.S. RAYUDU AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 04-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH, R.F. NARIMAN

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 3 S.C.R. 221 
R.K. ROJA 
v. 
U.S. RAYUDU AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 5540of2016) 
JULY04,2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 01: 7 r 11 - Rejection of 
plaint - On facts, election petition by respondent challenging the 
election of the appellant - Application u!Or. 7 r 11 by appellant for 
rejection of the petition by way of counter affidavit - Non-
consideration of the same since there was no formal application 
and court proceeded with the trial - Subsequently, formal application 
for rejection of the petition by appellant - Non-disposal of the same 
and posted along with the main petition as also denial of opportunity 
to the appellant to file written statement - On appeal, held: 
Application u/01: 7, r. 11 can be filed at any stage - Court has to 
dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial court - There 
is no point in proceeding with the trial of the case - Petition is only 
to be rejected at the threshold - Appellant entitled to file the 
application for rejection before filing his written statement and in 
case, the application is rejected, appellant is entitled to file his written 
statement thereafter - Procedure adopted by the court not warranted 
under law - Thus, the impugned order is set aside - Since the 
application does not come within the purview of any of the situations 
u/01: 7 r 11 (a) to (j), application is rejected - Appellant given an 
opportunity to file written statement in the Election Petition within 
the stipulated period. 
Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra and 
others (2003) 1 SCC 557:2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 491; 
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity 
Commissioner & others (2004) 3 SCC 137 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
c2004) 3 sec 131 
2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 491 
221 
relied on 
relied on 
Paras 
Para6 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5540 of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2016 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and the State of 
Andhra Pradesh in E. A. No. 222 of2016 in E. P. No. 4 of2014. 
· 
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Amit Kumar, A. Ramesh, Syed Ahamed, Allam 
Ramesh, Ms. Sh ii pi Gupta, Shaurya Sahay, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Prithvi 
Pal, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Advs. for the Appellant. 
B.Adinarayana Rao, Sr.Adv., Suyodhan B., Ms. Tatini Basu,Advs. 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant has two grievances - (i) The Court has not disposed 
of an application filed by her under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for rejection 
of the Election Petition and the same has been posted along with the 
main petition and (ii) She is denied an opportunity to file written statement. 
3. The first respondent herein filed an Election Petition challenging 
the election of the appellant to the 289 Nagiri Assembly Constituency. 
Appellant was declared elected on 16.05.2014. The election petition is 
dated 30.06.2014. On receipt of notice in the Election Petition, the appellant 
filed Annexure-P/4-application for rejection of the Petition, under Order 
VII Rule 11 of the CPC by way of a counter affidavit. It appears that 
the cou11 declined to consider the same on the ground that there was no 
formal application and hence proceeded with the trial. At that stage, 
appellant filed Annexure-P/5-formal application for rejection of the 
Election Petition on the ground that the Election Petition did not disclose 
any cause of action. That application as per the impugned order dated 
27.04.2016 was posted along with the main petition,11~1d thus, the appeal. 
4. The High Court has taken the view that the same "was not filed 
at the earliest opportunity" and that appellant was not diligent in 
prosecuting the application. Therefore, the court took the view that ... 
"this application filed by the first respondent shall be decided at 
the_ time ()(.final hearing ... ". 
5. We are afraid that the stand taken by the High Court in the 
R.K. ROJA v. U.S. RAYUDU AND ANOTHER 
223 
[KURIAN, J.] 
impugned order cannot be appreciated. An application under Order VII 
A 
Rule 11 of the CPC can be filed at any stage, as held by this Court in 
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. 
Assistant Charity 
Commissioner and others 1 ••• "The trial court can exercis

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