ORDER :

1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This civil revision has been filed by the petitioner the returned candidate, against the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Ratlam in case No. MJC/173/2022 whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the election petitioner the respondent No. 1 has filed the Election Petition under Section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 (in short “the Act of 1961”). In the aforesaid election petition, the election petitioner has also sought the relief that in addition to that the election of the petitioner, who has been elected as Councilor in Ward No. 15 be set aside, and also prayed that he should be declared as elected. In the aforesaid petition, the petitioner returned candidate filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC raising a specific ground that the election petitioner has not joined all the candidates as parties, which is in violation of Sub-Section (4) of Section 20 of the Act of 1961. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Election Tribunal vide its order dated 10.08.2023, holding that the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner does not fall within the purview of under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. This order dated 10.08.2023 is under challenge in this petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Sub-Section (4) of Section 20 of the Act of 1961 which provides that in such cases where the election petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election or nomination of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected or nominated, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates shall be made party. Thus, it is submitted that since the election petition is not in proper format according to law, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the election petition deserves dismissal.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Jyoti Basu and Others vs. Debi Ghosal and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 691, B. Sundara Rami Reddy vs. Election Commission of India and Others, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 624 and Michael B. Fernandes vs. C.K. Jaffer Shariff and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 521 in which it is held that the election petition in which the persons enumerated under Section 82 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as party respondent are not made parties, is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.

6. Counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as it is merely a procedural lapse on the part of the election petitioner and can be cured by way of amendment and submits that the respondent No. 1 is ready to file an amendment application before the Election Tribunal. Thus, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. On due consideration of submissions, perusal of the documents filed on record, this Court finds that it is not disputed that there was a prayer of recrimination by the respondent No. 1 in the election petition, which was filed against the election of the petitioner, who was elected as the Councilor of Ward No. 15 of Ratlam. As per the documents filed, there were as many as 3 candidates, who had contested the election, whereas, the election petitioner, in his election petition has made only the present petitioner as a party respondent, which clearly runs contrary to the provisions of Sub-Section (4) of Section 20 of the Act of 1961, which reads as under:

“20. Election petitions:

(1) No election or nomination under this Act shall be called into