AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on : 05-08-2025 Pronounced on : 11-09-2025 EP No. 11 of 2024  Biresh Thakur S/o Satyanarayan Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o Satyanarayan Singh, R/o - House No. 169, Ward No. 9, Thakur Para, Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgah.

... Petitioner versus

1. Shri Bhojraj Nag Returned Candidate / Member Of Parliament, Kanker Parliament, Kanker Parliament, Kanker Parliamentary Constituency No. 11, Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

2. Tilak Ram Markam R/o - Gram Pidhapal, Post- Pidhapal, Tehsil-

Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

3. Son Singh R/o Gram- Konguda, Tehsil- Farasgaon, District-

Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

4. Jivan Lal Matlam R/o House No. 34, Gram- Iragaon, Post- Iragaon, Tehsil- Keshkal, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

5. Sukchand Netam R/o Gram, Post- Mawlipara, Tehsil- Sarona, Block-

Narharpur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

6. Vinod Nagwanshi R/o Bajrangpara, Gram-Chediya, Tehsil- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh.

7. Thakesh Mahla C/o House No. 48, Andipara, Ward No. 3, Gram-

Andi, Tehsil- Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

8. Bhojram Mandavi R/o Village- Jawartara, Post- Kotara, Tehsil-

Charama, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Ishan Verma, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1. : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocates.

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

C A V Order

1. This order will govern disposal of the interim application No. 1/2024, preliminary objection on maintainability of election petition filed by the respondent No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

2. The respondent No. 1 has filed this interim application under Order 7 Rule

11 CPC mainly contending that:

(a) The election petition has been filed in contravention of Sections 81, 82, 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (For short, “the Act, 1951”) and Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 as according to Section 81 of the Act, 1951, the election petition should be filed by the candidate himself and failure to adhere to such course would be contrary to the said provision and on this count alone election petition is liable to be dismissed. It has also been contended that in the affidavit it has been mentioned that contents and grounds of the petition have been drafted as per instructions by his counsel which clearly establishes that the election petition has been presented by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner. It has been further contended that as per Section 83 of the Act, 1951, election petition should contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. Further, it has been mentioned that it shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges including full particulars or statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have been committed, but in the instant case, not a single averment, pleading pertaining to corrupt practice has been made against the answering respondent, as such the election petition is not maintainable and it has been prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(b) It has also been contended that from bare perusal of the pleadings made in the election petition, it is quite vivid that the entire allegations made in the election petition are with regard to questioning the election conducted by the Election Commission of India, then it is incumbent that the Election Commission of India be arrayed as party to the case, but Election Commission of India has not been arrayed as party to the case, therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the election petition on account of non-joinder of necessary party. It has also been contended that there is violation of Rule 94-A of the 1961 as the petitioner has to sworn a separate and another affidavit as prescribed under Rule 94-A of the Rules 1961 in the form of Form 25 and should plead complete particulars on which the petitioner intends