Election petitions must adhere to procedural requirements; defects in compliance are addressed post-evidence gathering, not at preliminary stages.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This I.A. has been filed by the respondent in Election Petition No.12 of 2024 (Laxman Bag-Returned candidate) praying for directing the Registry for re-stamp reporting of the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 filed by the Election Petitioner in terms of the High Court Rules stating in the I.A. that, the Election Petition has been filed by the Election Petitioner questioning the validity of the Election of the respondent (returned candidate) on the ground of furnishing false, misleading and incorrect particulars in his affidavit in Form-26 relating to the movable and immovable assets in Part A and Part B with his nomination papers. Therefore, the result of the Election of the respondent has been materially affected by improper acceptance of his nomination papers as well as for non-compliance of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and as such, in the pleadings of the Election Petitioner, there is allegation of corrupt practice against the respondent within the meaning of Section 123 of the R.P. Act, 1951 as per the dictum of the Apex Court in Lok Prahari Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 4 SCC 699 for which, in view of the decision between Tankadhar Tripathy Vs. Dipali Das reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1793, it was the duty of the Registry to point out the defects regarding the non- compliance of the requirement of Form-25 at the time of filing of his election petition. Therefore, the said defects have been brought to the notice of this Court through this I.A filed by the respondent (returned candidate) praying for sending the Election Petition No.12/2024 to the Registry for re-stamp reporting in order to clarify about the non-compliance with the requirements of Form 25.

2. Heard from the learned Counsel for the Petitioner (respondent in the Election Petition No.12/2024) and the learned Senior Counsel for the Opp. Party (Election Petitioner in Election Petition No.12/2024).

3. When during the course of hearing of this I.A., the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in Election Petition No.12/2024 argued for sending the Election Petition No.12/2024 for re-stamp reporting, to which, the learned counsel for the Election Petitioner in Election Petition No.12/2024 objected contending that, the above grounds raised on behalf of the respondent for re-stamp reporting of the Election Petition No.12/2024 has already been discarded as per the Order dated 28.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.138/2024 in Election Petition No.12/2024 filed by the same respondent and the trial of the Election Petition No.12/2024 has already progressed substantially.

4. it appears from the Judgment dated 28.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.138/2024 arising out of Election Petition No.12/2024 that, the said I.A. No.138/2024 was filed by the respondent under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 praying for rejection of the Election Petition No.12/2024 of the Election Petitioner alleging that, though, corrupt practices have been alleged in the Election Petition by the Election Petitioner against the respondent (returned candidate), but the said Election Petition has not been accompanied with the required affidavits in the prescribed format along with some other grounds, to which, this Court rejected assigning the reasons in its Judgment dated 28.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.138 of 2024 that, the Election Petition of the Election Petitioner cannot be rejected at its threshold on such grounds raised on behalf of the respondent.

When this Court has already rejected to the said I.A.No.138/2024 arising out of Election Petition No.12/2024 of the respondent assigning the reasons that, the defects if any in the Election Petition i.e. whether the Election Petition contains