GAG v. Mamta Shailendra Patil & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RANJIT MORE
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Mr. Sonawane, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, application filed by the petitioner in EP No.3/2012 for transferring said Election Petition to the court of 6th Joint CJSD was already dismissed by a separate order. He further submits that, he has no objection…
Judgment
Mr. Tushar Sonawane, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Uday Warunjikar a/w. Mr. Balasaheb Chaudhary, Advocate for Resp. No.1. CORAM DATED :: :: RANJIT MORE, J. 27th November, 2012. P.C. :- Heard.
By the impugned order dated 24th July, 2012 passed under Section 24 “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908”, the learned Incharge Principal District Judge, Nashik withdrew Election Petition No.3 Of 2012 pending on the file of the 7 th Joint Civil Judge,(Sr.Divn.), Nashik and transferred it on the file of the 6th Joint Civil Judge,(Sr.Divn.), Nashik for its disposal according to law. Further, 6 th Joint Civil Judge,(Sr.Divn.), Nashik was directed to decide both these Election Petitions together.
Election Petition No.2/2012 filed by respondent No.1 is pending on the file of 6th Joint Civil Judge,(Sr.Divn.), Nashik; where-as Election Petition No.3/2012 filed by Advocate Balasaheb Chaudhary is pending before 7th Joint Civil Judge, (Sr.Divn.), Nashik. Both these Election Petitions have been filed challenging the election of petitioner as a Corporator of Municipal Corpn., Nashik. The petitioner filed application before the District Court, Nashik for transfer of E.P.NO.2/2012 on ２ the file of 7th Jt.CJSD, Nashik. On the said application, impugned order is passed whereby, 6th Joint Civil Judge,(Sr.Divn.), Nashik was directed to decide Election Petition Nos.3/2012 & 3/2012 together. The District Judge, Nashik considered the provision of Section 403(4) of “the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act,1949” and in view of the mandate contained therein, withdrew Election Petition No.3 Of 2012 pending on the file of the 7th Joint CJSD and transferred it on the file of the 6th Joint CJSD for its disposal according to law.
Mr. Sonawane, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, application filed by the petitioner in EP No.3/2012 for transferring said Election Petition to the court of 6th Joint CJSD was already dismissed by a separate order. He further submits that, he has no objection to transfer EP No.2/2012 on the file of 7 th Joint CJSD. Petitioner’s objection cannot entertained. The petitioner cannot be allowed to forum shoppe. Election Petitions ultimately are required to be heard on merit, by the court. The petitioner is required to be granted full opportunity before arriving at any decision. In the circumstances, I find Writ Petition devoid of any substance. Same, is accordingly, dismissed.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.