LexSMT. NEENA VIKRAM VERMA versus BALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 845 SMT. NEENA VIKRAM VERMA v. BALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3840 of 2013) APRIL 12, 2013 [H.L. GOKHALE AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Election Petition - Recrimination Petition - Filed by appellant - Application of respondent u/Or. VII, r. 11 CPC for rejection of Recrimination Petition - Allowed by High Court, consequently leading to dismissal of Recrimination Petition - Appellant challenged the order - By consent order passed by Supreme Court, order of High Court set aside, and Recrimination Petition restored to the file of Election Petition A B c - Subsequent application of respondent No. 1 u/Or. VI, r. 16 D CPC for striking off certain pleadings from the Recrimination Petition - Allowed by High Court on ground that such pleadings were vague, vexatious, non-specific and without any material facts - Propriety - Held: Not proper - Once it is accepted by a party by consent that a particular petition (in E the instant case the Recrimination Petition) is to be heard by the Court, by giving up the objection u/Or. VII, r.11, the very party cannot be subsequently permitted to seek the striking off the pleadings containing the cause of action under the garb that the pleadings containing the cause of action are unnecessary, vexatious or scandalous - No Court is expected to permit any matter to be raised which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack, once F the same is relinquished by the party concerned - High Court ought to have noted this basic principle of any litigation - It G could not have entertained the application u/Or. VI. 6, r. 16 when Supreme Court had restored the Recrimination Petition to the file of High Court by consent in order to decide it expeditiously - High Court to now proceed to decide the 845 H 846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A Recrimination Petition expeditiously - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI, r. 16 and Or. VII, r. 11 - Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 - s.97 - Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 - r.63. Election Petition - Verification - Defect in - Removal - B Held: Defect in the verification in the matter of Election Petition can be removed in accordance with the principles of CPC, and that it is not fatal to the Election Petition. In the General Elections to the Madhya Pradesh C Legislative Assembly, the appellant was declared elected defeating the first respondent by one vote. Respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition challenging the election of the appellant on the ground of improper reception, refusal and rejection of votes under the provisions of D Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. This was principally on the basis that the counting of the postal ballot was done in violation of Rule 63 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, to the benefit of the appellant. The appellant in turn filed a Recrimination Petition under Section 97 of E the R.P. Act, 1951, principally raising two grounds: (a) in paragraph 3 that there were several criminal cases pending against the 1st respondent which he had not disclosed, and (b) in paragraph 4 that the first respondent had indulged into various corrupt practices. F Respondent No.1 thereafter filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the Recrimination Petition on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action. This was apart from filing the reply on merits to the Recrimination Petition. The High G Court allowed the said application, consequently leading to the dismissal of the Recrimination Petition filed by the appellant. The appellant challenged ~his order before this Court, but by a consent order passed by this Court, the said order of the High Court was set aside, and the H NEENA VIKRAM VERMA v. BALMUKUND SINGH 847 GAUTAM ' Recrimination Petition was restored to the file of the A Election Petition. Subsequently the High Court allowed the Election Petition, and set aside the election of the appellant, and directed the Recrimination Petition to be heard. The appellant filed a statutory appeal before this Court against the order in the Election Petition under section 116 A of the R.P. Act, 1951. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 6 Rule B 16 for striking off the pleadings in paragraph 3 and 4 of the Recrimination Petition. This application was allowed C by the impugned order which led to the present appeal. Allowing the appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.