ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

I.A. No.138 of 2024

(Arising out of ELPET No.12 of 2024)

***

Laxman Bag … Petitioner

-VERSUS-

Giriraj Singh Majhi … Opposite Party

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr.Sambit Mohanty, Advocate

Mr.P.P. Behera, Advocate

Mr.D.Nanda, Advocate

For the Opposite Party : Mr. G.Agarwal, Sr.Advocate

Ms.S.Srivastava, Advocate

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing: 13.10.2025 :: Date of Order : 28.11.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This Interlocutory Application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the Respondent (Returned Candidate) in Election Petition No.12 of

2024 against the Election Petitioner praying for rejection of the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 under the following grounds:-

(i) the Election Petitioner has no locus standi to file the Election Petition.

(ii) the averments made in the Election Petition do not disclose any cause of action.

(iii) the Election Petition is manifestly meritless, vexatious and the same do not disclose any right to sue.

(iv) the Election Petition of the Election Petitioner does not contain a concise statement of material facts and the nomination of the Respondent (Returned Candidate) was improperly accepted and due to such improper acceptance of his nomination, the Election of the Returned Candidate was duly affected.

(v) the Election Petition does not disclose about any direct injury or prejudice to the Petitioner by the result of the Election.

(vi) the Election Petition of the Election Petitioner does not specifically specify the irregularities in the nomination and affidavits of the returned candidate and also does not show, how the same has affected the rights and interest of the Election Petitioner.

(vii) though, corrupt practices have been alleged in the Election Petition against the returned candidate, but, the Election Petition does not accompany the required affidavits in a prescribed format.

2. According to the Respondent (Returned Candidate) in Election Petition No.12 of 2024, when, the Election Petition of the Election Petitioner is defective from its very inception for the aforesaid grounds, then, the clever drafting of the Election Petition has created an illusion of cause of action. For which, the same is required to be nipped in the bud i.e. at its earliest by rejecting the Election Petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., 1908 and to prevent the Respondent (Returned Candidate)

from proceeding with unnecessary litigations.

To which, the Election Petitioner (Opposite Party in this I.A.)

objected taking his stands in his show cause denying the aforesaid allegations alleged by the Respondent (Returned Candidate) stating that, the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 has been filed by him (Election Petitioner) in conformity with the provisions of Sections 81 to 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951 and the grounds thereof are within the parameters of Section 100(1) (d) (i)

and (iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951 and the rules thereof.

For which, the Election Petition of the Election Petitioner cannot be rejected at its threshold. Therefore, the I.A. No.138 of 2024 filed by the Petitioner (Respondent in the Election Petition No.12 of 2024) is liable to be rejected.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Respondent in the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 and the learned Senior Counsel for the Election Petitioner.

4. In order to reject the Election Petition No.12 of 2024, the learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Tankadhar Tripathy Vrs. Dipali Das reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1793 (II) In a case between Madhab Dhada Vrs. Parsuram Dhada reported in SLP (C) No.17478-17479 of 2025 (III) In a case between Krishnamoorthy Vrs. Sivakumar reported in (2015) 3 SCC 467 (IV) In a case between Lok Prahari Vrs. Union of India reported in (2018) 4 SCC 699 (V) In a case between R.P. Moidutty Vrs. P.T.Kunju Mohammad reported in (2000) 1 SCC 481 (