Gwalior, dated: 06/7/2023 Mr R.D. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sangam Jain and Mr. Ajay Bhargav, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Surendra Singh Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.

1.

Heard the parties on I.A. No. 2292 of 2023, an application for deleting issue Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 9 and objection raised by learned counsel for the election petitioner for exhibiting the document (copy of Writ Petition No. 4794 of 2020).

2. By filing I.A. No. 2292 of 2023, it is submitted by respondent No. 1 that the instant petition has been filed challenging the scheduled castes status of respondent No. 1 contending that respondent No. 1 does not fall under NAT Scheduled Caste category. The election petitioner has also challenged final verdict of Madhya Pradesh High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 18.12.2019, validating the NAT Scheduled Caste status of respondent No. 1, by filing Writ Petition No. 4794 of 2020, which was allowed by order dated Signature Not Verified

12.12.2020, whereby order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Caste Signed by: SANJAY Scrutiny Committee has been quashed. The order dated 12.12.2020 was challenged by respondent No. 1 in Writ Appeal No. 1668 of 2022 in which the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2020 has stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 12.12.2020 passed in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the election petition is trying to get simultaneous relief from two different forums of this High Court on the same issue. Under these circumstances, the issues framed challenging the caste of respondent No. 1 should be deleted and pleadings based on that issue should be struck off because continuation of instant election petition on that basis will be abuse of the process of Court and also wasting the valuable time of this Court.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the application (I.A. No. 2292 of 2023) by filing its reply and argued that the present application is filed malafidely just to delay the process in this petition. It is further argued that this petition is based on the wrong information given by respondent No. 1 while filing his nomination papers in respect to his caste status, therefore, the Signature Not Verified issues in respect to the caste status of respondent No. 1 are Signed by: SANJAY necessary for deciding the election petition. Further argument is that earlier also, the maintainibility of this petition had been challenged by respondent No. 1 by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 & Section 10 of CPC which were dismissed. Now respondent No. 1 is raising same questions again just to hinder the proceedings, therefore, the application be dismissed.

4. Present election petition is filed mainly on two grounds; (i) that, at the time of filing of nomination form, respondent No. 1 / returned candidate did not belong to the scheduled caste category and, (ii) that, respondent No. 1 has suppressed material information with regard to the pendency of criminal case registered by Lokayukta police at crime No. 17/2017 while filing the nomination form.

5. Order 14 provides settlement of issues, which reads as under:-

“Order XIV – Settlement of Issues and Determination of Suit on Issues of Law or on Issues Agreed upon Rule 1: Framing of issues—

(1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other.

Signature Not Verified (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law Signed by: SANJAY or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.

(3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue.

Rule 2: ...........

Rule 3: Materials from which issues may be framed— The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials:—

(a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by