The requirement for personal presentation of an election petition under applicable rules can be satisfied through e-filing and virtual presence due to extraordinary circumstances, ensuring compliance with procedural mandates.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in Election Petition No. 2 of 2021 ( Prabhat Tomar Vs. Veerpal and others ) rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that elections for the post of Member Zila Panchayat were held in State of U.P. on 19.04.2021. The counting started on 02.05.2021 and was completed on 03.05.2021. In the counting, the present petitioner was declared elected as member Zila Panchayat for Ward No. 42 Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar. Respondent No. 1, who was declared second in the aforesaid election filed an election petition being Election Petition No. 2 of 2021 ( Prabhat Tomar Vs. Veerpal and others ) under Section 27 sub- clause 2 (a) (b) of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "Act, 1961") read with Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Election Disputes relating to Membership) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred as "Rules, 1994") on various grounds which are given in the election petition itself, which has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 of the petition. Petitioner, who was the elected member of Ward moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejecting the election petition, which was contested by the election petitioner-respondent No. 1 by filing objections. The Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar by the order dated 31.05.2025 rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. Hence the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. was filed mainly on two grounds firstly, that the Rules required that the election petition has to be filed by the election petitioner in-person and in case, there are more than one election petitioners then by one of the election petitioners and secondly, on the ground that from the perusal of the election petition, it is apparent that the grounds taken by the election petitioner are wholly vague and the election petitioner has failed to plead the material particulars. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that election petition was filed on 02.06.2021 and from the Munsrim Report, it is apparent that the said petition was filed by the petitioner through Shri Netrapal Singh, Advocate. The counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the Munsrim Report dated 02.06.2021 which is annexed at page No. 72 A of the petition and the same is quoted as under:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraph Nos. 8 to 14 of the election petition and contended that from the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is apparent that no details as to the votes (ballot papers) which were alleged to be casted in favour of the election petitioner, but the credit of which has been given to the present petitioner has been given. It has also been contended that by means of the present election petition, election petitioner wants a roving inquiry which is not permissible. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in case of Devendra Yadav Vs. District Election Off