THEPFULO NAKHRO ANGAMI versus SHRIMATI RAVALU ALIAS RENO M. SHAIZA

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 21-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

424 
TIIEPFULO NAKHRO ANGAMI 
V• 
SHRIMATI RAVALU alias RENO M. SHAIZA 
January 21, 1971 
[J. C. SHAH, C.J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER 
A 
AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
B 
Appeal-Respondent in Supreme 
Court seeking to rals• qu•stions 
decided in favour of appellant by High Court-Respondent is entitl•d to 
raise such question even though he has not filed substantive qpptal against 
High Court's iudgment-Princlp/e applies to appeals under Representation 
of the People Act, 1951, s. 116A as a1nended in 1966--C'ourt can devise 
appropriate procedure In 
absence of express provlsions-Provislqns of 
Civil Procedure Code 0. XL/ r. 22 can be drawn upon. 
C 
In an election petition there were charges under s. 123(6) read with 
s. 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the appellant. 
The High Court decided against him. although absolving him of certain 
charges. The appellant filed an appeal in this Court under s. 116A of 
the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as amended in 1966. The 
respondent contended that he was entitled to submit without preferring a 
>ubstantive appeal to this Court that the charges in respect of which the 
D 
appellant had been absolved by the High Court were proved and he should 
therefore be allowed to raise those questions. On ·the matter being te· 
ferred to a large bench: 
HELD : The respondent's contention must be accepted. 
In Rambhai Ashabhai Patel's case it was ruled that this Court has 
power to decide all the points arising from the judgment appealed against 
F 
and even. in the absence of an el>press provision like OXLI r. 22 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can devise appropriate procedure to 
be adopted at the hearing and there could be no better way of supplying 
the deficiency than by drawing upon the provisions of a general law ·Jike 
the Code of Civil Procedure and adopting surh of those provisions as are 
suitable. The decision di the Court did not rest either on the ground that 
the appeal before it was brought by special leave or on the interpretation 
of s. J 16A as it then stood. [426 D-GJ 
F 
Ramanbhai Ashabhai Pate/ v. Debbi Ajitkumar Pulsinji cf< Ors. [196S] 
I S,C.R. 712, followed and applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal No. 1125 of 
1970. 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the R$Presentation of the People 
G 
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated March 26, 1970 of 
the Assam and Nagala.nd High Court in Election Petition No. 2 
of 1969. 
S. V. Gupte, 
S. K. Ghose, 
Advocate-General, Nagaland, 
Naunit Lal, A. R. Bharthakar, R. C. Chaudhry and B. K. Dass, 
b~~~~ 
H 
A. S. R. Chari, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, R. K. Mn, V. I. 
Francis and S. Chakravarty, for the respondent. 
A 
THEPFULO v. RAVALU (Hegde, ].) 
On January 14, 1971 the Court passed, the following 
ORDER 
425 
After hearing the arguments we are of the view that under 
s. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as amend-
B 
ed by the Act of 1966, the respondent is entitled to mpport the 
judgment of the High Court without preferring an appeal against 
an order made against him if the ultimate decision in the petition 
is in his favour. 
The reasons for this order will be given here-
after. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. 
The decision on the .question of law considered 
by this Bench was announced on the 14th of this month. 
We 
are now proceeding to give our reasons in 'support of that decision. 
On September 14, 1970, two of us (Shah, C.J. and Grover, J.) 
passed the following order : 
"This appeal raises an important question of proce-
dure. We have heard learned Counsel appearing Qll be-
half of the parties. Mr. Gupte appearing for the appel-
lant contended that the charge under s. 123(6) read 
with s. 77 of the Representation of the People Act was 
not made out. Mr. Chari appearing on behalf of the 
respondent contended that he was entitled to submit 
without preferring a substantive appeal to this Court 
that the charges in respect of which the appellant has 
been absolved by order of the High Court are proved 
and he should be permitted to raise those questions in 
this appeal. Our attention has not been invited to any 
case which interprets the provisions of s. 116(A) of 
the Representation of the People Act at it stands after 
the amendment made in the year 1967: 
In view. of the importance of the question, we direct 
that the case be referred to a larger bench of five judges. 
Hearing expedited. 
Though the 

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