Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 996
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J
Karan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Raghunath Agarwal – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1400/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Kumar Pareek, Adv., Dr. Anil Sharma, Adv., Mr. Shalendra Joshi, Adv.
For the Respondents:
Failure to include specific relief in an election petition limits the Tribunal's capacity to frame relevant issues, reinforcing the need for precise pleadings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 14 Rule 5, Order 7 Rule 7 - Election petition - Improper rejection of nominations - Appellant challenges framing of issues in the election petition - Issues on limitation and cause of action were allowed - Court found that the Election Tribunal rightly considered the core issue; undue rejection of the nomination suffices for claims in the election petition - Additional issues were unnecessary. (Paras 8, 9)
(B) Election Law - Requirements for filing an election petition - Specific relief claims must be included; absence of such relief hampers the tribunal’s framing of issues - Decisions must align with the prayed relief. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from an election petition alleging improper rejection of a nomination form, where the Tribunal's framing of issues was contested. The respondent sought cancellation of election results and a re-election due to these claims.
Findings of Court:
The existing issues framed by the Tribunal addressed the fundamental controversy of improper rejection of the nomination forms; additional issues were deemed redundant.
Issues: Was the rejection of the nomination form sufficient for claims within the election petition? Did the Tribunal err by not allowing further issues?
Ratio Decidendi: Election petitions need specific relief claims; the core issue was already identified; thus, additional issues were not warranted, as the essence of the petition had been captured.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Order
16/08/2021
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant challenging the order dated 31.07.2021, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for amending and striking out issues has been partly allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Mr. Ashok Kumar Pareek submitted that respondent No.1-Raghunath Agarwal has filed an election petition against the present appellant in respect of municipal elections for Ward No.134, Municipal Corporation (Greater), Jaipur.
Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.1, in the prayer of his election petition, has specifically asked only for setting aside the election dated 01.11.2020 and declaration of result dated 03.11.2020. Learned counsel submitted that the prayer clause also included relief of cancellation of election and further direction to conduct the election afresh.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the election petition, filed by the respondent No.1, a reference was made in para Nos.7 and 8 that the nomination form of respondent No.1 was wrongly rejected and he was illegally deprived to contest the election.
Learned counsel submitted that though the averment with regard to improper rejection of the nomination form of respondent No.1, was specifically pleaded, however, no relief was claimed in the election petition seeking for a declaration that rejection of form of respondent No.1, was to be declared illegal.
Learned counsel submitted that initially the Election Tribunal framed two issues vide order dated 12.07.2021.
The issues, so framed, are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
Learned counsel submitted that issue No.1 was wrongly framed by the Election Tribunal, as there was no prayer in the election petition to declare the election as null and void.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Election Tribunal also did not frame the issues relating to limitation, cause of action, locus standi and effect of improper rejection of nomination form of respondent No.1 and its consequences.
Learned counsel submitted that the appellant accordingly moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC.
Learned counsel submitted that four issues were requested to be framed by the appellant.
The issues suggested by the appellant in his application are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
Learned counsel submitted that by the impugned order dated
31.07.2021, the Court below has partly allowed the application and has permitted two issues to be added as issue No.1(A) and
1(B) relating to limitation and cause of action.
Learned counsel further submitted that the issue Nos.3 and
4, which were suggested in the application relating to locus standi and improper rejection of nomination form and its effect, have not been permitted to be framed as additional issues.
Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has wrongly come to the conclusion that the issue No.4 was already covered in the issue No.1, which was already framed by the Tribunal.
Learned counsel submitted that issue No.1, which was framed by the Election Tribunal, was based on a wrong premise, as there was no prayer in the entire election petition of the respondent No.1 where relief was sought to declare the action of the Returning Officer illegal and against the law, while rejecting the nomination form.
Learned counsel further submitted that for the error, which was committed by the Court below, while framing the issues vide order dated 12.07.2021, it was brought into notice of the Election Tribunal that in absence of the prayer and relief sought, the Tribunal could not have framed the issues in the manner, the same was framed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the power given under Order 5 Rule 14 CPC is required to be exercised in proper manner and the competent Court has power to amend the issue or frame the additional issues for determining the matters in controversy between the parties.
Learned counsel submitted that
