ORDER :

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.8.2016 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, sitting at Kanakapura, in E.P.No.5002/2016 whereby the interlocutory application filed by the respondent No.3 under Order VII Rule XI(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with the provisions Karnataka Grama Swaraj Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 are allowed, consequently dismissing the election petition.

2. The petitioner claiming to be a voter/RTI activist has filed the Election Petition No.5002/2016 seeking a declaration to the election of the 3rd respondent as member to the Sathanur Zilla Panchayat, Ramanagara District, is null and void. Subsequent to filing of the election petition, Sri. Kabbalegowda was impleaded as respondent No.4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent No.3 has filed an application under Order VII Rule XI(a) r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to reject the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the security deposit of Rs.2,000/as required under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (‘Act’ for short) and has not complied with the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act.

3. The petitioner contested the said application. On considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, the learned District Judge has allowed the application and consequently dismissed the election petition. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. The arguments of the learned counsel Ms.Manasi Sharma appearing for the petitioner are three fold. Firstly, the defects on the basis of which I.A. has been allowed consequently rejecting the election petition are curable in nature. Secondly, no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cure such defects. Thirdly, under evidence law, presumption is that the petition is filed in accordance with law unless the registry raises objection. No such objections were raised by the Registry.

5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. Umesh Challiyil Vs. K.P.Rajendran reported in AIR 2008 SC 1577

2. K. Krishnaraj Hegde Vs. Anil C. Lobo and others reported in AIR 2015 Kar. 152

3. Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar Vs. Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 547

4. Sharadendu Tiwari Vs. Ajay Arjun Singh and others reported in 2014 SCC Online MP 8637

5. Civil Revision Petition No.1062/2012 (D.D.2.7.2014) in the case of G.Mallikarjunappa Vs. M.T.Eshwarappa.

6. Learned counsel distinguishing the ruling of the Cognate Bench of this Court (Dharwad Bench) rendered in CRP No.1062/2002 submitted that the petitioner therein had not cured the defect at the appropriate stage. Hence, the petition was dismissed. Appropriate stage has to be construed in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sri.K.Krishnaraj Hegde, supra. It was argued that the appropriate stage would be when the formal defects or such other defects are pointed out either by the adversary or the court, at that point of time it is necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defects. The memo filed by the petitioner seeking permission to cure the defects has not been considered by the Trial Court. In such circumstances, the order of the Trial Judge, dismissing the election petition is unjustifiable.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order submitted that the Trial Judge has rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in G.Mallikarjunappa’s case which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The interpretation of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the phrase ‘appropriate stage’ is misplaced. The provisions of Sections 15 and 171 relating to the election matters stand on a different footing than the other provisions of the Act. It was mandatory on the part of the petitioner to comply with section 15(3) of the Act as well as section 171. The same not being adhered to, the Trial Judge has rightly dismissed the election petition