The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to substitute the original election petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and relevant case law.

1. This is an application filed by the applicant, who is the 13th respondent in the main Election Petition, seeking to substitute his name in the place of the original election petitioner.

2. When the matter came up on 10.6.2011, this court directed the second respondent to file a counter. Accordingly, a counter affidavit, dated 28.6.2011 was filed. No counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent. The first respondent filed the election petition to set aside the election made in favour of the second respondent who was elected to the Lok Sabha from Ramanathapuram Constituency. The Election Petition was filed on several grounds of corrupt practice. The said election petition was numbered as E.P.No.1 of 2009. Subsequently, the second respondent filed an application No.6915 of 2009 under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VI Rule 16 of CPC to strike off the election petition filed by the first respondent. The said matter was elaborately argued. This court by an order dated 28.02.2011 (since reported in 2011 (2) CTC 276 [Sivakumar @ J.K.Ritheesh Vs. V.Sathiamoorthy and others) held that the application could not be allowed in its entirety. The allegations relating to citizenship issue, receipt of copy of Compact Disc and Electronic Voting Machines were struck off from the original election petition. In respect of other allegations, it was relegated for proper trial. Therefore, the application was allowed in part and the main matter was directed to be posted for trial.

3. It now transpires that the second respondent had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.13240 of 2011. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to order notice on 13.05.2011. It is at this stage, the 13th respondent in the original election petition who was a candidate in the election, filed the present application seeking for substituting himself under Order XIV Rule 8 of the O.S. Rules read with Sections 82, 86 and 110 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and read with Order I Rule 10 of CPC.

4. The averments made in the applicant was that the first respondent who filed the election petition, had contested the election under the banner of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. The second respondent who was successful in the election stood on behalf of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. Subsequent to the filing of the election petition, he started seeking adjournments of the election petition. Neither he nor his counsel had appeared before the court. But the first respondent being the election petitioner was not taking any steps effectively in prosecuting the case. It is the applicant who was opposing adjournments. The first respondent never appeared before the Court and never opposed the second respondent's reaction. When this court has finally fixed the case for final argument, the first respondent joined the same political party as that of the second respondent, i.e., Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. After that he never came to the court. The Election Petition once filed, it cannot be contested only between the petitioner and the contesting respondent. The entire constituency is entitled to avail itself of the remedy. If there are requisite condition, the person who filed the petition can be substituted and such a substituted person can continue the proceedings. Order IX Rule 9 can be the relevant provision for restoration of the election petition in case of default. Hence by substituting the first respondent, no prejudice will be caused.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was stated that no unreasonable adjournments were taken. Based upon reasonable request, the court had adjourned the matter depending upon the situation. Even in the application to strike off the pleadings, arguments were addressed on behalf of the first respondent. The circumstances under which substitution can be ordered is provided in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 itself. It is contemplated un