High Court · 2025

counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents No.2, 3 and 4 are present. Notice need not be issued to respondents No.5 to 13 at this stage.

2. Through this writ petition the order passed by District Judge, Pilibhit in Election Petition No.2 of 2023 on an application moved under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) C.P.C. is under challenge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had contested for the post of President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit for which the election was held on 11.5.2023. Result (counting) was declared on 13.5.2023 wherein the petitioner was declared elected by margin of 798 votes. The petitioner secured 19066 votes while respondent No.1 secured 18268 votes.

4. An election petition No.2 of 2023 was filed before Election Tribunal/District Judge, Pilibhit wherein in an application under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. was moved by the Returned Candidate/petitioner on 23.4.2024. The said application has been rejected by the order impugned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Election Tribunal has not recorded any finding while rejecting the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. He further contends that Section 19 of U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 provides for the power to question the municipal election through petition. Further Section 20 provides for presentation of election petition which shall contain the ground on which the election of Returned Candidate is questioned and shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and set for the full particulars of any corrupt practices.

6. According to him, the election petition does not disclose the entire concise statement of material fact and the ground on which the election petition rests. He also contended that a vague allegation of corrupt practice has been made in the election petition which has led to filing of application under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. wherein a specific ground was taken that the election petition does not disclose the cause of action for maintaining the same.

7. Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the election petitioner-respondent No.1 submitted that the application moved under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. is vague and is not in consonance with sub-rule (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII or sub-rule (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. He has defended the order passed by District Judge, Pilibhit.

8. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. provides as under : "11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."

10. From perusal of the sub-rule (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. it is clear that the defendant can always question maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action.

11. In the instant case, the petitioner before this Court, who is a Returned Candidate, had raised a specific plea that the election petition filed by election petitioner does not contain the concise statement of the facts of the case nor any ground is made out for entertaining the election petition.

12. From perusal of the judgment of Election Tribunal, I find that no finding has been recorded by the Court below justifying the rejection of application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. The Court below should have taken into consideration the plaint and after disclosing as to how the application under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. was not maintainable, should have proceeded to pass the order. The order passed by the Court below is cryptic as it does not assign any reason in rejecting the application under order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. filed by the petitioner. The election matters cannot be taken so lightly and the application cannot be rejected without assigning any reason.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by District Judge, Pilibhit is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court concerned to consider the application under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. afresh and decide the same after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides, by a reasoned order expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the this order.

14. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands partly allowed. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Kushal KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents No.2, 3 and 4 are present. Notice need not be issued to respondents No.5 to 13 at this stage.

2. Through this writ petition the order passed by District Judge, Pilibhit in Election Petition No.2 of 2023 on an application moved under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) C.P.C. is under challenge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had contested for the post of President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit for which the election was held on 11.5.2023. Result (counting) was declared on 13.5.2023 wherein the petitioner was declared elected by margin of 798 votes. The petitioner secured 19066 votes while respondent No.1 secured 18268 votes.

4. An election petition No.2 of 2023 was filed before Election Tribunal/District Judge, Pilibhit wherein in an application under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. was moved by the Returned Candidate/petitioner on 23.4.2024. The said application has been rejected by the order impugned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Election Tribunal has not recorded any finding while rejecting the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. He further contends that Section 19 of U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 provides for the power to question the municipal election through petition. Further Section 20 provides for presentation of election petition which shall contain the ground on which the election of Returned Candidate is questioned and shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and set for the full particulars of any corrupt practices.

6. According to him, the election petition does not disclose the entire concise statement of material fact and the ground on which the election petition rests. He also contended that a vague allegation of corrupt practice has been made in the election petition which has led to filing of application under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. wherein a specific ground was taken that the election petition does not disclose the cause of action for maintaining the same.

7. Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the election petitioner-respondent No.1 submitted that the application moved under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. is vague and is not in consonance with sub-rule (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII or sub-rule (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. He has defended the order passed by District Judge, Pilibhit.

8. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. provides as under : "11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."

10. From perusal of the sub-rule (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. it is clear that the defendant can always question maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action.

11. In the instant case, the petitioner before this Court, who is a Returned Candidate, had raised a specific plea that the election petition filed by election petitioner does not contain the concise statement of the facts of the case nor any ground is made out for entertaining the election petition.

12. From perusal of the judgment of Election Tribunal, I find that no finding has been recorded by the Court below justifying the rejection of application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. The Court below should have taken into consideration the plaint and after disclosing as to how the application under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. was not maintainable, should have proceeded to pass the order. The order passed by the Court below is cryptic as it does not assign any reason in rejecting the application under order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. filed by the petitioner. The election matters cannot be taken so lightly and the application cannot be rejected without assigning any reason.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by District Judge, Pilibhit is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court concerned to consider the application under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. afresh and decide the same after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides, by a reasoned order expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the this order.

14. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands partly allowed. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Kushal KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad