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 stay all further proceedings in EOP No-01 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal District. {A NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order granted in lA No 1 ot 2024 in CRP No. 466 of 2024 dated 1 1-03-2024 until further orders in the interest of Justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 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 2024 in CRP NO. 466 of 2024 dL 19-04-2024 until further orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH RAVINDER Counsel for the RespondenG: POOJARI SRILEKHA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTTCE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY '. CIVIL REVISION PETITIONNo.466OF 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. 325 of 2022 in EOP. No. 0l of 2022.

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

3. The brief facts of the case relevant for adjudication of this Revision Petition is that a gazette notification dated 07.01.2020 was issued by the Telangana State Election Commission lor election of Ward Members of Gadwal Town Municipality scheduling the date ol 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.l8 and respondent No. I was the unsuccessful candidate in the said election. While so, respondent No.l herein frled EOP.No.0l of 2020 under Section 233 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, (fo?brevity, hereinafter relerred to as 'the Act,2019') on the file of \ 2 LNA, J CRP.Nq.466 of 2024 the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, to declare election of the revision petitioner as Ward Member from l8 Ward of Gadwal Tor.r,n Municipality as void and to set aside the same; and further, to declare respondent No. 1 herein as elected Ward Member from lgth Ward of Gadwal Town Municipality.

4. In the said EOP, respondent IrJo. I herciii primarily contended that the provisions of the constitution and the Rures and orders made under the Telangana Municinalities and Municipal Corporations Rules, 2020 (for brevity, hereinafter refbrred to as 'the Rules') and the provisions of Representation of peoples Act, 1951, were not complied with, thereby materially affecting the result of election insofar as revision petitioner is concemed and therefore, the election o[ revision petiticner, being void and inoperative, is liable to be set aside. 5. Revision petitioner entered appearance and filed an application in I.A.No. 40 of 2021 under Orcler VII Rute I 1(a) & (d) r/w Section 151 CpC for rejection of the EOp on the following grounds:- /' 3 LNA, J CRP.N\.166 of 2021 (i)That the III Additional District Judge, Gadwal is not a constituted Election Tribunal and therefore, the said 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 tegalty 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 Etection Petition, which is in contravention of Rule 8(lXii) of the Rules 2020.

6.It was further averred that III Additional District Judge, Gadwal is not Principal District Judge fol Mahabubnagar District, in terms of Section Z$) of CPC, Section 10 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 of the Election Petition on merits' It was further avened that the State Govemment, on revenue side, has ) 4 LNA, J CRP.No.466 oI 2024 reorgaRized the Districts, whereunder Mahabubnagar District was divided into five Districts, consequence of which Jogulan.rba_ 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 l)istrict Judge, Gadwal cannot be treated as the principal District Judge for Jogulamba-Gadwal District to entertain, try and dispose of tire Election Petition. 7 . Respondent No. I herein fi [ed counter resistine the said application and contended that as per Rule 4(b) ofthe Rules, 2020, when more than one District Judge is having territorial jurisdiction, then Principal District Judge will act as ,Election.l-ribunal, as per the intent of State legislature. It was lurther stated that the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, ar Gadwal is functioning as independent judiciary having proper tenitorial 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 rvas avemed that he had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/_ in the Section of the III Additiona! District Judge at Gad.+al, Mahabubnagar Distlict f 5 LNA, J CRP.No.466 of 2024 and the same was accepted and in fact, the Section of the said Court never took such an objection. 9'He further stated that if the pleadings in the Election petition are read in whole, cause of action for filing Election petition is made out.

10.By stating thus, respondent No. I herein contended that the said application hled by revision petitioner is frivolous and also abuse of process of law and as such, the same is tiable to be dismissed. 11. The III Additional District Judge ar Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, in the light olthe judgmenr dated lO.Il.2OZl of this Court in CRP.No. 466 of 2024,, vide impugned order dated 3O.1l.ZO2l has held that it has no jurisdiction to enteftain the Election petition and therefore, restrained itself lrom adjudicating the other grounds raised by respondent No. I herein and ultirnately, partly allowed the application and returned the Election petitior.r under order vII Rule 10 CPC for preseniing the same before proper forum. 12. Consequent upon return of the Election petition, respondent No.l herein presented the same before the Erection Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Jogulamba_Gadwal District, and the same was re-numbered as EC)p.No. 0l of 2022. During the pendency of 6 LNA, J CRP.No.466 of 2024 the said EOP, the revision petitioner again filed an application in lA.No.325 of 2Q22 under Order VII Rule 11 (a-) & (d) CPC to reject the EOP on the ground that respondent No.1 herein has not deposited the security amount as required under Section 8(l)(ii) of 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, Mahabubrragar District 1 3. Respondent No. t herein hled counter lesisting the said application and contended that the allegations made in the apptication are not even pleaded in the counter filed in the Election Petition; that the said application is filed after comtneucernent ol- trial with mala .fide intention to protract the Election Petition and the same is frivolous and is liable to be dismissed

14. The Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District while dismissing the said application, vide impugned order dated 29 .l | .2023, observed that revision petitioner has not pressed for disposal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC when the same was filed before the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnaga"r District and has came with the present ( 7 LNA, J CRP,No.466 of 2024 application by harping upon the point of limitation which is mixed question of fact and law and therefore, at the threshold the Election Petition cannot be thrown out on the said ground alone. 15' The principar District Judge, Joguramba_Gadwar 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. 16. Aggrieved by the said order of the principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, the present Revision petition is fited. 17. Leamed counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that pursuant to the order dated 30. ll.Zo2l passed by the III Additional Districr Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, refurning the Election petition, the same was re_presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba_Gadwal District, who was having jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the Election Petition, therefore, it is obvious that respondent No. 1 herein have initially approached wrong forum. He further ) 8 LNA, .] CRP.No.466 of 2024 contended that there was no cause of action for hling Election Petition for want oi compliance of manCatcry 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 forun cannot be condoned in Election Petition by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act and all these aspects were not considered by the Principat District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District ir-' the irnpugned order andhad erroneously dismissed the apptication filed seeking to reject the Election Petition' He further contended that the Act, 20i9, is a self-contained Act, wherein specihc tirne has been prescribed fbr filing Election Petition and the said Act being a Special Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicatrle to the Election Petitions. He further contended that deposit of security ai'aount is manCatory as per R-ule 8(1XiD of Rules' 2020 and since respondent No'l herein failed to compll' with the said provision, the Election Petition is liable to be reiected on that ground also.

18. To buttress his contentions as regards the period ol iimitation, ieameci senior courrsel relied upon the judgment of the 9 LNA, J CRP.No.466 of 2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Devi Vs. Manisha Devi and otherst, the judgment of the erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh in Maddipatla Jagan Mohan Rao Vs. Akula Nagamalleswari and others2 and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Shaheed Shahazadho Vs. K.Naayana Reddy and another3.

19. Learned counsel, ln support of his contention that requlrement of deposit of security amount is mandatory in Election Petition and non-compliance of the same would render the Erection Petition void, relied upon the judgment of the Hon,bte Supreme Court in Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Nandkishore Bhatta and otlrersa,, judgment of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in T.H.Abdut Azeez Vs. K.G.Balasubramanians andjudgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh in Anajamma Vs. S.pushpammo und anolher6.

20. Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent No. I herein contended that Principal District Judge,Jogulamba_Gadwal District has rightly dismissed the apprication on the grounds on which the 'AIR zo18 sc 3912 'MANU/Aplo1oZ2oo8 'AIR 2019 Karnataka 42 "ArR 1973 SC 2464 'MANU/KE/ 1458/2011 "2001(1) ALD 77 (D8) t0 LNA, J CRP.No.466 of 2024 respondent No.1 herein sought for rejection ofthe Election Petition by observirrg that the same can be decided only after full-fledged trial and therefore, the Election Petition cannot be rejected at the threshold. She further contended that Election Petition was fi1ed within the period of limitation and further, the security amount was deposited with the Superintendent of the Court of the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District along with the Election Petition and it is aiso a fact that the Section of the said Court has not raised any objection with regard to non-payment of security amount at the time of numbering the Election Petition' everL otherrvise, as observed by the Principal District Judgc' Jogulamba-Gadrval District in the impugned order' it is a curable defect.

20.1. Learnedcounselfurthercontendedthatoriginally'Election Petiticn ';;as hled before the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District which has got -iurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition, more so, in view of reorganisation of revenue Dlstricts in Telangana State by the State Government' hence, the contention of the revision petitioner that Election Petition was file,j before a wrong forum i'e', III Additional Distlict l1 LNA, J CRP-No.166 o12024 Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District is untenable. She finally 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 District and hence. this Revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 2l . This Court gave its earnest consideration to the averments made by both the parties 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 leamed counsel appearing for both the patties

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 lnore than one such District Judge, the principal District Judge shalt be the Election Tribunal. The said Rule has to be read along with Section 233(3) of Act, 2019, as per which, .principal Distr.icr Judge, is t2 LA'A, J CRP.Na.166 oI 2024 designated as 'Election Tribunal' to try the Election Petitions and the proceeciings conrrecied thercwith' 23. In the instant case, at the relevant time of filing Election PetitionbeforethelllAdditionalDistrictJudgeatGadwal, Mahabubnagar District, admittedly, Principal District Judge' Mahabubnagar District existed' There was reorganisation of Districts in Telangana by the State Govemment on revenue side on

11.10.2016, wherein a new District-Joguiamba-Gariwai District is formed by division of Mahabubnagar District into five segments' However, on judiciat side, there was no such reorganisation of Districts, as such, the Principat District Judge, Mahabubnagar District continued to be the Etection Tribunal as postulated under Rule 4(b) of the Rutes, 2020' 24. The State Govemment issued GO'Ms'No'61' Law (LA' LA&i-Home-Courts-A2) Department' dated 0l'06'2022' whereunder 33 Judicial Districts in the State of Telangana co- terminus u'ith 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 theCourtoiiiiArjditionatDistrictJudgeatGadwal. (- l3 LNA, J CW-No.166 of 2021 Mahabubnagar 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 order to compute the time spent by respondent No. I herein before a wrong forum, it is apt to note down the cfuonology ofdates in the present case as hereunder:_ (i) (ii) (iii) Elections were held on22.01.2020 Results of elections declared on25.0L.2020 Election Perition No. 0l of 2020 was filed before III Additional District Judge at Gadw al, Mahabubnagar District on20.02.ZO2O (iu) Election Petition No. 01 of 2020 was retumed by III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District vide order d,ated, 30.1 1.2021 -') 14 LNA, J CRP.No.466 o[ 2024 (v) Election Petition was re-presented before Principal District Judge, Gadwal District on 10'11 '2022 and re' numbered as EOP.No. 0l of 2022

27. Thus, from ZO.O2.2O2O to lO.1l.2OZ2, i'e', the date on 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 iorum.

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

29. In Suman Devi's case (cited supra), the Hor.r'ble Supreme Court, white adjudicating the issue as to limitation in filing of Election Petition vis-ir-vis the Haryana Panchayat Ral Act' has held thatasperSectionlT6(1)thereof,theElectionPetitionmustbe filedwithin30daysfromthedateofdeclarationofresultsof 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 further, observed that the Election t5 LNA, I CRP.No.166 of 2021 Petition which fails to comply with the mandated statue is liable to be disrnissed.

30. In Shaheed Shahazadha's case (cited supra), the Kamataka High Court, fotlowing the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in S uman Deui,s case (cited supra), held that since there is no statutory right analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there remains no right for the respondent to seek for condonation of delay spent in wrong forum. 31. In the tight ol the aforesaid judgments, this Court comes to conclusion that rhc period spent by pursuing the Election petitions in wrong lorurn cannot be condoned. 32. Sincc the corc issues as to rhe maintainability of the Election Petition and the period spent in pursuing the Election petition before a wrong lbrum are held against respondent No.1, this Court is not inclined to dclve into the aspect of deposit of security amount by respondent No. I at the rime of filing Election petition. 33. In the light of thc 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 Courts as referred supra, this Court holds thar the principal District Judge, Jogulamba_ \ L l6 I,NA, J CRP.No.166 of 20% Gadwal District cornmitted illegality and irregularity in dismissing the application filed under Order V[[ Rute 10 CPC and therefore, the same watrants interference by this Court.

34. Accordingll,, this Civit Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in IA.No.325 of 2022 in EOP.No. 0l of 2022 and consequently, the said [.A stands allorved

35. As a sequel, misccllaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU PUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \n,

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge' Jogulamba Gadwal Dtstrict 2 One CC to SRl. CH RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. POOJARI SRILEKHA' Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies. CYS/PSLw HIGH COURT DATED: 0410412025 ORDER CRP.No.466 of 2024 oR 1nE S trq r€ 2 fi AUS 2025 t/i (_) D, CRP IS ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS G*Cd 5kp-\-Ly