KALYAN SINGH CHOUHAN v. C.P. JOSHI

Judgment

A B c [2011] 2 S.C.R. 216 KALYAN SINGH CHOUHAN v. C.P. JOSHI (Civil Appeal No. 870 of 2011) JANUARY 24, ·2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Election Laws: Election petition - Trial and adjudication of - Held: The procedure provided for trial of civil suits under CPC is not applicable in its entirety to the trial of election petition - T~ procedure prescribed in CPC applies to election trial with flexibility and only as a guidelines. D Representation of People Act, 1951 - ss. 80, 81, 100(1)(d)(iii) and s.97 - Election petition - Right of a party to lead evidence - Elections held to constitute State Legislative Assembly- Allegation that 10 votes were cast by imposters and thus, 10 tendered votes cast under the Rules - Appellant E declared elected - Election petition filed by respondent before High Court - Appellant fifed written statement - Later filed application to summon list of all tendered votes - High Court rejected the application - On appeal, held: The pleadings in the election petition related only to 6 tendered votes - There F was no reference in respect of the remaining 4 tendered votes either in the election petition or in the written statement filed by the appellant - In absence of any Recrimination petition, the appellant could not be permitted to lead evidence on a fact not in issue - Also, in the application, no reason nor G justification was given by the appellant for summoning of the other 4 tendered votes - Therefore, the High Court rightly did not allow the appellant to lead evidence which was no1 in the line of the pleadings - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 42. H 216 KALYAN SINGH CHOUHAN v. C.P. JOSHI 217 Pleadings - Jurisdiction of the Court to grant relief - A Held: A decision of a case cannpt be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XIV, Rule 1- Fratning of issues - Object and purpose of - Held: The object. of framing issues is to ascertain/ shorten the area: of dispute . B and pinpoint the points required to be determined by the court - /tis the issues fixed and not the pleadings that guide the parties in the matter of adducing. evidence - It is neither desirable nor required for the court to frame an issue not arising on the pleadings - The Court should not decide a suit C on a matter/point on which no issue has been framed. Elections were held to constitute the 13th Legislative Assembly for the State of Rajasthan. During the process of polling, there were allegations that in .respect of the D constituency in question, at least 10 votes were cast by imposters and thus, 10 tendered votes were cast under Rule 42 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The appellant was declared elected the said constituency by a margin of one vote. E The respondent, an unsuccessful candidCJte, filed election petition before the High Court under Sections 80, · 81, 100(1 )(d)(iii) and Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of 1951 Act, inter- alia, alleging: (i) that the name of the appe.llant's wife was registered at two places in the electoral rolls of the F constituency and hence she had cast two votes in the election; and (ii) that six (6) tendered votes cast in the I election must be counted and the six (6) votes originally pollerl against the tendered votes must be rejected. The G I appellar;~ filed written statement contesting the election petition. Arll'" framing of the issues, the appellant flied an application to summon inter a.lia the list of all tendered votes. The High Court rejected the application on the ground that it was not permissible to summon tendered H

2.18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R. A votes in respect of which none of the parties had taken the pleadings nor an issue had been framed in respect of those tendered votes and, thus, it was not permissible to lead any evidence on the fact which is not in issue; more so, on the ground of delay, as the application had B been filed after framing of the issues. In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for consideration was whether the result of the election had been materially affected and, therefore, once the appellant C raised his statutory right to lead evidence, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice, it was necessary that all the tendered votes were summoned and taken into consideration i.e. be counted. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 0 HELD: 1. The trial of an election petition is entirely different from the trial of a civil suit, as in a civil suit trial commences on framing the issues while trial of an election petition encompasses all proceedings E commencing from the filing of the election petition up to the date of decision. Therefore, the :Jrocedure provided for the trial of civil suits under CPC is not applicable in its entirety to the trial of the election petition. For the purpose of the election petition, the word 'trial' includes the entire proceedings commencing from the time of filing the election petition till the pronouncement of the judgment. The applicability of the procedure in Election Tribunal is circumscribed by two riders: firstly, the procedure prescribed in CPC is applicable only "as nearly as may be", and secondly, the CPC would give G way to any provisions of the Act or any rules made thereunder. Therefore, the procedure prescribed in CPC applies to election trial with flexibility and only as guidelines. [Para 10) (230-A-D] F H Kai/ash v. Nanhku & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2441; Harcharan KALYAN SINGH CHOUHAN v. C.P. JOSHI 219