HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Abhay Kumar @ Dheeraj Ojha – Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kumar Verma And Others – Respondents
Election Petition No. 6 of 2022
Decided On : 25-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background of the recrimination petition application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for issuance of notice under cpc and rp act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. arguments against notice necessity based on consequential nature. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. analysis of legal frameworks for election petitions and counter-claims. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. determination that recrimination petitions require formal notice to respondents. (Para 42 , 43) |
| 6. deferment of notice issuance until election petition outcome is determined. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
JUDGMENT :
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Order On C. M. Application No.IA/43 of 2024.
1. Application has been filed for issuance of notice on I.A. No.32 of 2024 filed by respondent No.1 of Election Petition. The said application has been filed pertaining to Recrimination Petition which has been numbered as I.A. No. 32 of 2024 in the Election Petition.
2. Heard Mr. Anupam Mehrotra, learned counsel for recriminator/ respondent no.1 to the Election Petition, Mr. Sudeep Seth, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rajnish Ojha, learned counsel for Election Petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.4 in the Election Petition.
3. Mr. Anupam Mehrotra, learned counsel for recriminator/ respondent no.1 has submitted that earlier subsequent to filing of Election Petition, recrimination petition had been filed under Section 97 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 with the said recrimination petition initially being registered as Writ C No.4613 of 2022 in which notice was issued vide order dated 21.07.2022 whereafter the said recrimination petition was directed to be listed as an interim application in the election petition itself resulting as application no.32 of 2024.
4. It is submitted that since notice was issued initially in the writ petition and not in a recrimination petition, fresh notices are required therefore to be issued in the recrimination petition to all the respondents particularly since even when the recrimination petition was registered as writ petition, despite issuance of notices, such notices have not been served upon all the respondents.
5. Elaborating upon his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on Chapter XV-A, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules pertaining to special provisions relating to the trial of election petitions and submits that the said provision clearly indicates the provision for issuance of notices in an election petition. It is submitted that such a notice is required to the respondents to put up their defence, file the written statement and for purposes of leading evidence.
6. He has also referred to Chapter XV-A, Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules to submit that the Court has power to give directions in matters of practice and procedure which is consistent with the provisions of Section 87 of the Act of 1951 including recording of evidence.
7. He has also adverted to Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to submit that before the High Court, every election petition has to be tried as nearly as may be, in accordance with procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to the trial of suits.
8. It is therefore submitted that since provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable, provisions of Order V Rule 9, Order VII, Rule 9 and Order VIII, Rule 6A (4) of the Code are required to be followed.
9. It is submitted that in terms of Order VIII, Rule 6-A, procedure in case of a counter claim by defendant has been indicated and submits that in case of such a counter claim in respect of cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff, the same procedure is required to be followed as applicable to plaints & consequently as indicated in Order V and Order VII of the Code.
10. It is submitted that Order VII, Rule 9 of the Code indicates proc
Bhag Mal versus Ch. Parabhu Ram & Ors.
Janardan Dattuappa Bondre versus Govind Prasad Shiv Prasad Choudhar
The time period for substituting candidates in election petitions under Section 116 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is mandatory, and failure to comply within the specified 14 days resu....
Point of Law : An Election Petition presented to the Election Commission is scrutinised by it and if Election Commission does not dismiss it for want of compliance with provisions of Section 81, Sect....
The Odisha Municipal Act requires only summary allegations in election petitions, contrasting with the detailed pleading requirements under the RP Act, making the dismissal of the petition improper a....
An election petition may be rejected if it fails to comply with mandatory pleading requirements regarding concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices as per the Represen....
Important Point :Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices; failure to comply results in dismissal.
Election petitions must provide concise statements of material facts; failure to do so results in rejection as they do not constitute a complete cause of action.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.