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. 1 of 2024 in cRP No 468 oI 2024 dated 11-03-2024 until further orders in the interest of Justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GH RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents: POOJARI SRILEKHA The Court made the following: ORDER 3 L- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALTSHETTY 11 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.468 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing'the order dated

29.11.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba- Gadwal District in IA.No.333 of 2022 in EOP.No.8 of 2022.

2. Heard Sri CH. Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner. and M/s. Sritekha Pujari, learned counsel for respondent No.1

3. The brief I'acts of the case relevant for adjudication of this Revision Petition is that a gazette notifiiation dated 07.01.2020 was issued by the Telangana State Election Commission for election of Ward Membcrs of Gadwal Town Municipality scheduling the date of poll AS 22.01.2020; that accordingly, elections were heid and results were declared on 25.01.2020; that petitioner herein was the successful candidate from Ward No.10 and respondent No.l was the unsuccessful candidate in the said election. While so, respondent No.1 herein filed EOP.No.8 of 2020 under Section 233 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as'the Act,20l9') on the file of the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District; to 2 LNA, J CRP.No.468 of 2024 declare election of the revision petitioner as Ward Member from 10th Ward of Gadwal Town Municipality as voitj and to set aside (', the same; and further, to declare respondent No.l herein as elected Ward Member from 1Oth Ward of Gadwal Town l\{unicipality. 4. In the said EOP, respondent No.l herein primarily contended that the provisions of the Constitution and thc I{ules and Orders tnade under the Telangana Municipalities and Municipal Corporations Rules, 2020 (for brevity, hereir.raftcr referred to as 'the Rules') and the provisions of Representation of peoples Act, I 95 I , were not complied with, thereby materially affecting the result of election insofar as revision petitioner is concemed and therefore, the election of revision petitioner, being void and inoperative, is Iiable to be set aside. 5. Revision petitioner entered appearance and hled an application in I.A.No.47 of 2021 under Order VII Rule I 1(a) & (d) r/w Section 151 CPC for rejection of the EOp on the following grounds:- (i)That the III Addirional District Judge, Gad,"val is nor a constituted Election Tribunal and ther.efbre, the said J LNA, J CRP.No.468 of 2024 Courl 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 tegally and validly 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.l herein failed to deposit security amount before the Court while presenting the Election petition, which is in contravention of Rule 8(1)(ii) of rhe Rutes 2020.

6. It was further averred that III Additional District Judge, Gadwal is not Principal District Judge for Mahabubnagar District, in terms of Secrion 2@) of CpC, Section l0 of Ap Civil Courts Act, 1972 and also under Section 3(17) of General Clauses Act, 1897, therefore, the said Couft cannot be construed as Election Tribunal to entertain and dispose olthe Election petition on merits. It was further averred that the State Govemment, on revenue side, has reorganized the Districts, whereunder Mahabubnagar District was divided into five Districts, consequence of which Jogulamba_ t !*,;- 4 LNA' J CRP.No.468 of 2024 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' Iil Additionat District Judge' Gadwal cannot be treated as the Principal District Judge tbr Jogulamba-Gadwal District to entertain' try and dispose of the ( Election Petttton. '7 . Respondent No' l herein filed counter resisting the said application and contended that as per Rule 4(b) of the Rules' 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 furlher stated that the III Additional District and Sessions Judge' at Gadwal is lunctioning as independent judiciary having proper tcr-ritorial iurisdiction over Jogulamba-Gadwal District and the said Courl 's not under the control of Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar District' 8. Insofar as payment of security amount is concemed' it was averred that he had deposited a sum of Rs'5'000/- in the Section of the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal' Mahabr-rbnagar 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.46E of2024

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.t 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 | .2021 of this Courl in CRP.No.468 of 2024, vide impugned order dated 30.1 1.2021 has hetd that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition and therefore, restrained itself from adjudicating the other grounds raised by respondent No. t herein and ultimately, partly allowed the application and retumed the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presenting the same belore proper forum. \2. Consequent upon retum of the Election Petition, respondent No.1 herein presented the same belore the Election Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwat District, and the same was re-numbered as EOP.No.8 of 2022. During the pendency of the said EOP, the revision petitioner again filed an application in 6 a LNA, J CRP.No.468 ol2024 IA.No.333 of 2O2Z under Order VII Rule I I (a) & (d) CpC to reject the EOP on the ground that respondent No.l hcrein has not ( deposited the security amount as required under Scction g(l )(ii) oi Act,, 2019 and Rules, 2020. and secondly, th-. tjOp does nor disclose lhe cause of action. They reiterated thc otlrer contentions raised in the Election petition filed before thc I lon,ble lll Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnauirr Distr.ict. 13. Respondent No.l herein filed counter rcsisting the said application and contended that the allegations rnade in the application are not even pleaded in the counter Illcd in thc Election Petition; that the said application is hlea after c.rnmcncemenr of trial with malo .fide intention to protract the EIecr ion I)etition and the same is fiivolous and is liable to be disnrissed. 14. The Principal District Judge, Jogularnba_(iadwal Disrrict whiledismissing the said application, vide irnpugncd order.dated

29.I1.2023, observed that revision petitioner has not pressed 1br disposal of the application fired under order vil l(rrrc r0 cpc when the same was filed before the III Additional I)istrict Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District and has carne u,i1h tlte present application by harping upon the point of lirnitatio. which is mixed :. 7 LNA, J CRP.No.468 of2024 question of fact and law and therefore, at the threshold the Election Petition cannot be thrown out on the said ground alone.

15. The Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District has further obserwed 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 lor rejection of plaint. It further observed that suppression of material facts at the time of filing of nornination is said to be cause of action for questioning the election of the revision petitioner.

16. Agglieved by the said order of rhe Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, the present Revision Petition is filed. ll . Leamed counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that pursuant to the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, retuming the Election Petition, the same was re-presented bclore the Principal District Judge, Jogutamba-Gadwal District, who was having jurisdiction to enter-tain and dispose of the Election Petition, therefore, it is obvious that respondent No.l herein have initialiy approached wrong forum. He further contended that there was no cause of action for hling E,lection I 8 LNA, J CRP.No.468 of2024 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 lorum cannot be condoned in Election petition by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act and all these aspects were not consider.ed by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal Disrricr in the impugnecl order and had erroneously dismissed tl.re application filed seeking to reject the Election petition. He furlher. contended that the Act, 2019, is a self-containi:d Act, wherr:in specific time has been prescribed for filing Etection petition and the said Act being a Special Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act are rot applicable to tl.re Election petitions. He further contended that deposit of securiry amount is mandatory as per. Rule g( I )(ii) of Rutes, 2020 and since responden[ No. t herein failed to cornply with the said provision, the Election petition is liable to be rejected on that ground also. 18. To buttress his contentions as regards the period of limitation, leamed senior counsel relied upon the .juclgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in sumun Devi vs. Monisho Devi and 9 LNA, J CRP.No.468 of 2024 otherst, the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Maddipatla Jagan Mohan Rao Vs. Akula Ntgamalleswari antl others2 and the judgment of Kamataka High Court in Shaheed Shuhazadha Vs. K.Nnoyana Reddy and anothers.

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 Lul Suhu Vs. Nandkishore Bhatla and olhersa, judgment of High Court of Kerala at Emakulam in T.H.Abtlul Azeez Vs. K.G.Balasubronwnian5 and judgrnent of the erstwhile High Courl of Andhra Pradesh in Anajamma Vs. S.Pushpamma and another6.

20. Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent No. t herein contended that Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District has rightly dismissed the application on the grounds on which the respondent No.l herein sought for rejection of the Election Petition 1 nIR 20t8 sc 3912 '? varuuTeeTorozT2ooa 3 AIR 2019 Karnataka 42 o AIR t9z: sc z46q s unuuTreTt+saTzor r 6 zootlr; ALD 77 (DB) I t0 LNA, J CRP.No.468 oJ 2024 by observing that the same can be decided only a.fter full-fledged trial and therefore, the E,lection Petition cannot b,: rejected at the C. threshold. She further contended that Election Pctition was filed within the period of limitation and further, the sbcurily amount was deposited with the Superintendent of the Courl of tl.re III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Districl along with the Election Petition and it is also a fact that the Section of the said Couft has not raised any objection with regard to non-payrnent of security amount at the time of numbering the Election Petition, even otherwise, as observed by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in the impugned order-, it is a curable defect

20.1. Leamed counse[ further contended that originally, Election Petition rvas filed belore the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District which has got j urisdiction to entertain the Election Petition, more so, in view of reorganisation of revenue Districts in Telangana State by the State Government, hence, the contention of the revision petitioner that Election Petition was filed before a wrong forum i.e., III Additional District Judge at Gadrval, Mahabubnagar District is untenable. She finalty 1t LNA, J CRP.No.468 of 2024 contended that the revision petitioner failed to point out any {) illegality or irregularity in the well-reasoned impugned order of the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal Districr and hence, this Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 2l . This Court gave its earnest consideration to the averments made by both the parlies and the arguments advanced by leamed counsel appearing for both the parties. perused the entire material available on record and also scrupulously gone through the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts, which were relied upon by learned counsel appearing lor both the parties.

22. As regards the contention of leamed 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 Ac! 2Cil9, as per which, ,principat District Judge, is t2 LNA, J LRP.No.468 oI2024 designated as 'Election Tribunal' to try the Election Petitions and ? the proceedings connected therewith'

23.Intheinstantcase,attherelevanttimeoflilingElection PetitionbeforethelllAdditionatDistrictJuclgeatGadwal, Mahabubnagar District, admittedly, Principal I)istrict Judge' Mahabubnagar District existed There was reorganisation of Districts in Telangana by the State Government on le\ enue side on I 1 . 10.2016, wherein a new District-Jogulamba-Gadu'al District is formed by division of Mahabubnagar District into five segments' However, on judicial side, there was no such reorganisation of Districts, as such, the Principal District Judge' Nlahabubnagar District continuecl to be the Election Tribunal as postulated under Rule 4(b) of the Rules,2020. 24. The State Govemment issued G'O'Ms'No'6 1' Law (LA' LA & J-Home-Courts-A2) Depa(ment, dated 0l '06'2022' whereunder 33 Judicial Districts in the State of Telangana co-terminus with the Revenue Districts were established' 25. 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 Judr3e at Gadwal' l3 LNA, J CRP.No.468 of 2024 N4ahabubnagar District 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 filed before a wrong forum and subsequently, it was re-presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, which is a constituted Election Tribunal to try the Election Petitions and the proceedings connected therewith.

26. In older to compute the time spent by respondent No.l herein before a wrong forun, it is apt to note down the chronology of dates in the present case as hereunder:- ' (i) Elections were held on22.01.2020 (ii) Results of elections declared on25.01.2020 (iii) Election Petition No.8 of 2020 was filed before III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District on20.02.2020 (i") Election Petition No.8 of 2020 was retumed by III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District vide order dated 30. 1 1.2021 I I I i I I I .l i l I ..4 ..r ? 14 LNA, J CRI'.No.468 of 2024 (u) E,lection Petition was re-presented before Principal District Judge, Gadwal District on 10.11.2022 arrd re- numbered as EOP.No.8 of 2022

27. Thus, from 20.02.2020 to 10.11.2022, i.e., ,:he date on which the Election Petition was re-presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, respondent Nc.1 herein spent a period of 2 years 9 months by pur.suing the Election petition before a wrong forum 28 Now. it is to be determincd as to whether. thc time spent in wrong forum can be condoned in Election Petitions while computing the period of limitation in filing the Election petitions

29. ln Suman Deui's case (cited supra), the lJon'ble Supreme Court, while adjudicating the issue as to limitation in filing of Election Petition vis-d-vis the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, has held that as per Section 176( I ) thereof, the Election pctition must be filed within 30 days from the date of declaratjon of results of election and since the said Act is complete Code fbr presentation of Election Petition, provisions of Section l4 of Limitation Act would clearly stand excluded and further, observed that the Election 15 LNA, J CRP.No.468 of 2024 Petition which fails to comply with the mandated statue is liable to be dismissed

30. In Shaheed Sltahozsdha's case (cited supra), the Kamataka High Courl, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Deyi'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 for the respondent to seek for condonation of delay spcnt in wrong forun-t 3 1. In the light of the aloresaid judgrnents, this Court comes ro conclusion that the period spent by pursuing the Election Petitions in wrong forum cannot be condoned.

32. Since the core issues as to the maintainabiiity of the Election Petition and the period spent in pursuing the Election petition before a wrong forum are held against respondent No.1 , this Court is not inclined to delve into the aspect ofdeposit of security amount by respondent No.1 at the time of filing Election Petition

33. In the light ofthe above totality of facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Coufts as referred supra, this Courl holds that the Principal District Judge, Jogularnba-Gadwal District l (

1.6 LNA, J CRP.No.468 of 2024 committed illegality and iffegularity in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and therelore, the same (] warrants interference by this Court.

34. Accordingly, this Civil Rcvision Petition is rrllowed, setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Plincipal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in IA.No.33l of 2022 in EOP.No.S of 2022 and consequently, the said I.A strnds allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed. No costs /ffRUE COPY// SD/- MOHO. ISMAIL \ ,,o iiurViec'rsinAn / \\ '' i r=at,o" oFFtcER To, PrincioalDistrictandSessionsJudge,Jogulamba'GadwalDistrict lj# icto sRl cH RAVINDER, Advocate [oPUC-l- - 5.#66 iJ sni pooLnRl sRILEKHA' Advocate [oPUC] 1 2 3 4 Two CD CoPies SS/gh lv HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 on .,,_ E _i 14 ( eJ c o O3 sEPM 2 o ((\ a 9e gr 1.1 -r iil i) .:: ..... * ORDER CRP.No.468 of 2024 ALLOWING THE C.R.P. 6 \a Y \