(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7 Rule 11 – Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 86, 80, 81, 83, 84, 100, 101 and 123 – Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, Rule 212 –Election petition – Dismissal of petition –Prayer for –Appellant asserted that the pleadings in the election petition lacked material facts and particulars of the corrupt practices attributed to him and, therefore, the election petition did not disclose a cause of action – Held that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 83 of the Act of 1951 is not fatal, as Section 86(1) thereof only speaks of non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 or 117 being the basis for dismissal of an election petition at the outset – Defects in an election petition that constitute non-compliance with Section 83 of the Act of 1951 is a curable defects – Once the High Court opined that a triable issue under Section 123(3) of the Act of 1951 is made out, find no grounds to interfere therewith. (Para 11)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7 Rule 11 – Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 86, 80, 81, 83, 84, 100, 101 and 123 – Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, Rule 212 – Election petition – Dismissal of petition – Prayer for – Alleged non-compliance with the requirements of Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951- Appellant stated that copies of the documents served on the respondents in the election petition were not true copies and had not been attested as such – However, a precise averment was not made by the appellant that the copy of the petition supplied to him was not attested by the first respondent under his own signature to be a true copy of the election petition – The copy of the petition furnished to him was neither produced before the High Court nor before Apex Court to substantiate this plea – In effect, the only point urged by the appellant is that the election petition is liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the requirement of Rule 212 of the Rules of 1971 – Held that Rule 212 of the Rules of 1971 introduces additional requirements prescribed by the High Court and the same cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be read into and be made part and parcel of Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951 – Objections raised by the appellant against the maintainability of the election petition filed by the first respondent had no merit and the order of the High Court holding to that effect warrants no interference. (Para 12 to 16)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 94 SC
[2024 INSC 103]
Babu Vs. M. Swaraj And Others
Civil Appeal No. 5975 of 2023-Decided on 12-02-2024.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-94-SC.pdf
