The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the interim order granted in lA No.2 of 2o24 in cRP No. 461 of 2024 dated: 19-04-2024 until further orders in the interest of justice' Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri CH. Ravinder Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA ALISHETTY 1 CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION No.46lOF 2024 BDEB: This Civil Revision Petition is fited assailing the order dated

29.11.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba- Gadwal District in IA.No. 326 of 2022 in EOP. No' 02 of 2022'

2. Heard Sri CH. Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner' Despite service of notice on the contesting respondent, there is no representation on their behatf.

3. The brief facts of the case relevant for adjudication of this Revision Petition is that a gazetLe notification dated 07'01'2020 was issued by the Telangana State Election Con'rmission for election of Ward Members of Gadwal Town Municipality scheduling the date of poll as 22.01.2020; that accordingly, elections were held and results were declared on 25'01'2020; that petitioner herein was the successful candidate from Ward No'26 and respondent No.l was the unsuccessful candidate in the said election. While so, respondent No. I herein fited EOP'No'02 of 2020 under Section 233 of the Telangana Municipalities Act''2019, (for brevity, hereinafter rel-erred to as 'the Act' 2019') on the file of the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal' Mahabubnagar I .,1 2 LNA, J CRP.N'0.461 of 2024 District, to declare election of the revision petitioner as Ward Member from 26 Ward of Gadwal Town Municipatity as void and to set aside the same; and further, to declare respondent No. I herein as elected Ward Member from 26h Ward of Gadwal Town Municipality.

4. In the said EOP, respondent No.1 herein primarily contended that the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules and Orders made under the Telangana Municipalities and Municipal Corporations Rules, 2020 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act, 195 l, were not complied with, thereby materially affecting the result of election insofar as revision petitioner is concerned and therefore, the election of revision petitioner, being void and inoperative, is liable to be set aside.

5. Revision petitioner entered appearance and filed an application in l.A.No. 4l of 2021under Order VII Rule I l(a) & (d) r/w Section 151 CPC for rejection of the EOP on the following grounds:- (i)That the III Additional District Judge, Gadwal is not a constituted Election Tribunal and therefbre, the said ,:,1&t: 3 LNA, J CRP.No.l6l oJ 2021 Court has no legal jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the Election Petition on merits. (ii) That the Election Petition does not disclose cause of action to challenge legally and vatidly elected retumed candidate. (iii)That the Election Petition is not in accordance with the mandatory statutory provisions of the Act, 2019 and the Rules, 2020, since respondent No' I herein failed to deposit security amount before the Court while presenting the Election Petition, which is in contravention of Rule 8(lXiD of the Rules 2020.

6. It was further averred that tll Additionat Distlict Judge, Gadwal is not Principal District Judge lor Mahabubnagar District, in terms of Section 2@) of CPC, Section l0 o1'AP Civil Courts Act, 1972 and also under Section 3(17) oi General Clauses Act, 1897, therefore, the said Court cannot be construed as Election Tribunal to entertain and dispose of the Election Petitiot.r on tnerits. It was further averred that the State Government, on revenue side, has reorganized the Districts, whereunder Mahabubnagar District was divided into five Districts, consequence of which Jogulamba- 4 LNA, J CRP-No.16l of 2021 Gadwal District was formed, however, on judicial side, no such reorganization of Districts in Telangana was done by the High Court of Telangana and as such, III Additional District Judge, Gadwal cannot be treated as the Principal District J udge for Jogulamba-Gadwal District to entertain, try and dispose of the Election Petition.

7. Respondent No.l herein filed counter resisting the said application and contended that as per Rule 4(b) ofthe Rutes, 2020, when more than one District Judge is having territorial jurisdiction, then Principal District Judge will act as 'Election Tribunal' as per the intent of State legislature. It was further stated that the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Gadwal is functioning as independent judiciary having proper territorial jurisdiction over Jogulamba-Gadwal District and the said Court is not under the control of Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar District 8 Insofar as payment of security amount is concemed, it was avemed that he had deposited a sum ofRs.5,000/- in the Section of the Ill Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District and the same was accepted and in fact, the Section of the said Couft never took such an objection. \ 5 LNA, J CRP.No.l6l of 2021

9. He further stated that if the pleadings in the Election Petition I are read in whole, cause of action for filing Election Petition is made out.

10.By stating thus, respondent No.l herein contended that the said application filed by revision petitioner is frivolous and also abuse of process of law and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed'

11. The III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, in the light of the judgment dated 30.1 l -2021 of this Coun in CRP.No.46l of 2024,vide impugned order dated 30'll'2021 has held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition and therefore, restrained itself from adjudicating the other grounds raised by respondent No.l herein and ultimately, partty allowed the application and retumed the Election Petition under Order VII Rute l0 CPC for presenting the same before proper fbrum'

12. Consequent upon retum of the Etection Petition, respondent No. I herein presented the same before the Election Tribunal-curn- Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, and the same was re-numbered as EOP.No. 02 of 2022. During the pendency of the said EOP, the revision petitioner again fited an application in IA.No.326 of 2022 under Order VII Rule I I (a) & (d) CPC to 6 LNA, J CRP.No.46l of 2021 reject the EOP on the ground that respondentNo'l herein has not deposited the security amount as requird under Section 8(l)(ii) ol Act, 2019 and Rules' 2020, and secondly, the EOP does not disclose the cause of action. They reiterated the other contentions raised in the Election Petition filed before the Hon'ble III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District' t 3.Respondent No. I herein filed counter resisting the said apptication and contended that the allegations made in the application are not even pleaded in the counter filed in the Election Petition; that the said application is filed after commencement of triat with mala fide intention to protract the Election Petition and thc same is lrivolous and is liable to be dismissed'

14. The Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District ,,vhite dismissing the said application, vide impugned order dated

29.11.2023, observed that revision petitioner has not pressed tbr disposal of the application filed under Order VII Rute I0 CPC when the sarne was filed before the III Additional District Judge at Gadrval, Mahabubnagar District and has came with the present apptication by harping upon the point of limitation which is mixed L 7 LNA, J CR?.No.161 of 2024 question of fact and law and therefore, at the threshold the Election t Petition cannot be thrown out on the said ground alone.

15. The Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District has further observed that the cause of action includes bundle of facts and as such, the averments made in the plaint alone has to be considered while considering the application for rejection of plaint. It further observed that suppression of material facts at the time of filing of nomination is said to be cause of action for questioning the election of the revision petitioner. l6.Aggrieved by the said order of the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, the present Revision Petition is filed

17. Leamed counsel appearing for the revision petitioner corltended that pursuant to the order dated 30. ll.202l passed by the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, retuming the Election Petition, the same was re-presented belore the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, who was having jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the E lection Petition, t]rerefore, it is obvious that respondent No. t herein have initially approached wrong forum. He further contended that there was no cause of action tbr filing Election 8 LNA, J CRP.No.l6l o12024 Petition for want of compliance of mandatory provisions under the Act,2019 and the Rules, 2020 and that the Election Petition is filed beyond the period of limitation. Leamed senior counsel specifically contended that the time spent before a wrong forum cannot be condoned in lllection Petition by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act and all these aspects were not considered by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in the impugned order andhad erroneously dismissed the application filed seeking to reject the Election Petition. He further contended that the Act,2019, is a self-contained Act, wherein specific time has been prescribed lor filing Election Petition and the said Act being a Special Act, thc provisiorts of the Limitation Act are not applicabte to the Election Petitions. He further contended that deposit of security amount is mandatory as per Rule 8(lXiD of Rules, 2020 and since respondent No.l herein failed to comply with the said provision, the Election Petition is liable to be rej ected on that ground also.

18. To buttress his contcntions as regards the period of timitation, learncd senior counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Devi Vs. Manisha Devi and ' - ..1' 9 LNA, J CBP.No.46I o12021 otherst, the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Maddipatla fagan Mohan Rao Vs' Akula 0 Nagamalleswori and others2 and the judgment of Kamataka High Court in Shaheed Shahaztdha Vs, K'Naayana Reddy and another3 .

19. Learned counsel, in support of his contention that requirement of deposit of security amount is mandatory in Election petition and non-compliance of the same would render the Election Petition void, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Nantlkishore Bhatla and othersa, judgment of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in T'H'Abdul Azeez Vs. K.G.Bolasubramanians and judgment of the erstwhile I{igh Court of Andhra Pradesh it Anajamma Vs' S'Pushpamma antl tnolher6.

20. This Court gave its eamest consirleration to the averments made by both the parties and the arguments advanced by leamed counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.Perused the entire material avaitable on record and also scrupulously gone through the 'AIR zo18 sc 3912 zMANU/AP/0107/2008 rAIR 2019 Karnataka 42 .AIR 1973 sc 2464 5MANU/KE/ 1458/2011 62001(1) ALD 77 (DB) 10 LNA, J CRP.No.l6l oJ2021 various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts, which were relied upon by leamed counsel appearing for a both the parties.

21. As regards the contention of learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner that Election Petition was filed before wrong forum, it is to be seen that as per Rule 4 of the Rules, 2020, Election Tribunal shall be the 'District Judge' having territorial jurisdiction over the municipal area, or if there are more than one such District Judge, the Principal District Judge shall be the Election Tribunal. The said Rule has to be read along with Section 233(3) of Act, 2019, as per which, 'Principal District Judge' is designated as 'E.lection Tribunal' to try the Election Petitions and the proceedings connected therewith

22. In the instant case, at the relevant time of filing Election Petition before the III Additional Disrrict Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Districr, adnrittedly, Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar District existed. There was reorganisation of Districts in Telangana by the State Govemment on revenue side on ll.lO.2016, wherein a nerv Disrrict-Jogulamba-Gadwal District is formed by division ol- Mahabubnagar District into five segments. 6- {, LNA, J CW.No.16l oJ 2024 However, on judicial side, there was no such reorganisation of Districts, AS such, the Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar District continued to be the Election Tribunal as postulated under Rule 4(b) of the Rules, 2020.

23. The State Govemment issued G.O.Ms.No5l, Law (LA, LA&J-Home-Courts-A2) Department, dated 01.06.2022, whereunder 33 Judiciat Districts in the State of Tel;angana co- terminus with the Revenue Districts were established.

24. In view of the aforesaid GO and also in the teeth of the aforesaid provisions, the contention of respondent No.1 herein that the Court of III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Districr is an independent District Judge at Mahabubnagar District and as such, it has got jurisdiction to try the Election Petitions is incorrect and unsustainable. Thus, originally, the Election Petition was obviously hled before a wrong forum and subsequently, it was re-presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulantba-Gadwal District, which is a constituted Election Tribunal to try the Election petitions and the proceedings connected thereu,ith. F.....- 12 LNA' J CRP.No.461 of 2024

25.InordertocomputethetimespentbyrespondentNo.l herein before a wrong forum' it is apt to note down the chronology t ? of dates in the present case as hereunder:- (D Elections were held or.22'01'2020 (iD Results of elections declared on 25'01'2020 (iii) Election Petition No' 02 of 2020 was filed before III Additional District Judge at Gadwat' Mahabubnagar District ot20'02'2Q20 (19 Election Petition No' 02 of 2020 was returned by III Additional District Judge at Gadwal' Mahabubnagar District vide order dated i0' t I '2021 (v) Election Petition was re-prescnted belore Principal District Judge, Gadwat District on l0'll'2022 and re- numbered as EOP'No' 02 of 2022 Thus, from 20'02'2020 to l0'll'2022' ie'' the date on 26. which the Election Petition was re-presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District' respondent No'1 herein spent a period of 2 years 9 months by pursuing the Election Petition before a wrong forum' <-\i *./ l3 LNA, J CRP.No.46l oI2021

27. Now, it is to be determined as to whether the time spent in b, wrong forum can be condoned in Election Petitions while computing the period of limitation in filing the Election Petitions.

28. In Sumsn Devi's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while adjudicating the issue as to limitation in filing of Election Petition vis-ir-vis the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, has held that as per Section 176(1) thereof, the Election Petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of declaration of results of election and since the said Act is complete Code for presentation of Election Petition, provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act would clearly stand excluded and turther, observed that the Election Petition which fails to comply with the mandated statue is liable to be dismissed

29. In Shaheed Shahuadha's case (cited supra), the Kamataka High Court, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Devi's case (cited supra), held that since there is no statutory right analogous to Section l4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there remains no right tbr the respondent to seek for condonation of delay spent in wrong tbrutn i l4 LNA. J CRP.NL.46t ol20;21

30. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court comes to conclusion that the period spent by pursuing the Election petitions in wrong forum cannot be condoned. 31. Since the core issues as to the maintainability of the Election Petition and the period spent in pursuing the Election petition before a wrong forum are held against respondent No. l, this Court is not incrined to derve into the aspect of deposit of security amount by respondent No.l at the time of filing Election petition. 32' In the light of the above totarity of facts and circumslances of the case and also in view of the judgmenrs of the Hon,ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts as re fbrred supra, this Court holds that the principal District Judge, Jogulamba_ Gadwal District commifted illegality and irregularitl. in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule l0 CpC and therefore, the same warrants interference by this Court. 33' Accordingry' this civir Revision petition is alrowed, setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the principal Disrrict Judge, Jogulamba_Gadwal IA.No.i26 of 2022 EOP.No. 02 of 2022 andconsequently, the said I.A stands allowed IN District l5 LNA, J CRP.No.161 of 2021

34. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. /TTRUE COPY// Sd/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR - --r(t'-.- ' fr(, SECTION OFFICER / To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadw-al District' 2. One CC to Sri CH. Ravinder, Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CD CoPies Kam/lR HIGH GOURT DATED:0 410412025 t Il ORDER CRP.No.461 of 2024 I T4 lt. () 0 4 JUL 2025 z ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION b h