In election petitions, the provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951 prevail over the CPC for impleadment matters, and what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly.

ORDER :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the respondent No.2 (Hemant Kumar Prusty) in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 praying for passing of an order to direct the petitioner in I.A. No.117 of 2024 (respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) to implead him (Hemant Kumar Prusty-respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.117 of 2024 filed by him (respondent No.1) stating that, if the I.A. No.117 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 is allowed, then, the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 shall be rejected/dismissed and by the result of which, he (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 and petitioner in this I.A.) shall be highly prejudiced. For which, he (petitioner in this I.A.) is a necessary party in the I.A. No.117 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024.

Therefore, he (petitioner) is required to be given an opportunity of hearing in the I.A. No.117 of 2024. So, if this I.A. filed by him will not be allowed for his impleadment as the Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.117 of 2024, then, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

2. During the course of hearing of this I.A., the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in this I.A. (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) also argued in support of the aforesaid prayers of the petitioner.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in I.A. No.117 of 2024 (respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) did not object to the aforesaid contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2.

To which, the learned Senior Counsel for the Election Petitioner objected contending that, the self-same issue has already been decided by this Court vide Order dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.93 of 2025 rejecting to the prayer for the impleadment of the petitioner in this I.A. (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.117/2024, which was filed by the respondent No.1.

3. During the course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 relied upon the following decisions for the impleadment of respondent No.2 as Opp. Party No.2 in this I.A.:

(I) Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others: (2010) 7 SCC 417 .

(II) Civil Appeal Nos.5405-5406 of 2025 reported in 2025 INCS 611.

(III) K. Kamaraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar and Others reported in AIR 1958 SC 687 .

(IV) Inamati Mallappa Basappa Vs. Desai Basavaraj Ayyappa and Others: AIR 1958 Supreme Court 698.

4. For the dismissal of this I.A., the learned Senior Counsel for the Election Petitioner relied upon the following decisions:

(I) K. Venkateswara Rao & Another Vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi & Others:1968 SCC Online SC 285 (Para No.11 and 12).

(II) B. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India & Others: 1991 Supp. 2 SCC 624 (Para No.4).

5. It appears from the record that, previously, the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 had filed an I.A. vide I.A. No.93 of 2025 praying for the impleadment of the petitioner of this I.A. (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) as the Opp. Party No.2 in the same I.A. vide I.A. No.117 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 against the Election Petitioner.

6. As per the Judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.93/2025, this Court rejected to such I.A. No.93/2025 of the respondent No.1 refusing his prayer to implead the respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9/2024 as the Opp. Party No.2 in I.A.No