Ajay Arjun Singh vs Sharadendu Tiwari And Ors

2. General elections to the legislative assembly of Madhya Pradesh took place in the year 2013. On 8.12.2013, one Shri Ajay Arjun Singh (hereinafter referred to as the RETURNED CANDIDATE) was declared elected as a member of legislative assembly from 76 Churhat Assembly Constituency in the said election. On 20th January, 2014, challenging the declaration of said Ajay Arjun Singh, one of the contesting candidates Sharadendu Tiwari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ELECTION PETITIONER’) filed an Election Petition No.1 of 2014 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

4. Notice to the respondents in the Election Petition was ordered on 10th February, 2014. The RETURNED CANDIDATE was served[1] with the said notice on 18.6.2014. Admittedly, the election petition and all the annexures thereto were served on the RETURNED CANDIDATE on his appearance in the Court on 18.6.2014.

5. On 1st July, 2014, the RETURNED CANDIDATE filed I.A. No.43 of 2014 invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC (hereinafter referred to as “OR VII R 11 petition”) praying that the Election Petition be dismissed on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action. The said petition was dismissed by order of the High Court dated 25.8.2014. Aggrieved by the dismissal of OR VII R 11 petition, the RETURNED CANDIDATE filed an application for review (I.A. No.13575/2015 – hereinafter referred to as the “Review Petition”), which was also dismissed by the High Court by an order dated 18.3.2015.

iii) that, I.A. No.11665 of 2015 is “more about clarification of record, not clarification of order in strict sense”.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the objection raised by the RETURNED CANDIDATE is not tenable.

In view of the above conclusion, we do not wish to examine the other defences of the ELECTION PETITIONER in this regard.

34. If the abovementioned two findings are legally tenable, three appeals (arising out of SLP Nos.33933 of 2014, 11096 of 2015 and 31051 of 2015) filed by the RETURNED CANDIDATE are to be dismissed and the appeal (arising out of SLP No.15361 of 2015) filed by the ELECTION PETITIONER would have to be allowed. Therefore, we proceed to examine the correctness of the abovementioned findings recorded by the High Court.

II. In the order dated 25.08.2014, after recording a finding that the ELECTION PETITIONER did not file an affidavit in Form 25, the High Court recorded a further finding that such a defect is curable and, therefore, directed the ELECTION PETITIONER to cure the defect by filing a fresh affidavit in Form 25. The ELECTION PETITIONER without challenging the correctness of the finding that he failed to file an affidavit in Form 25 along with the election petition chose to comply with the consequential direction of filing afresh affidavit. Therefore, the ELECTION PETITIONER is precluded from contending at a later stage that the finding recorded by the High Court in its order dated 25.08.2014 is incorrect.

36. The ELECTION PETITIONER’s response to the above submissions of the RETURNED CANDIDATE is:

44. In view of the foregoing discussion, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No.31051 of 2015 being without any merits is dismissed. As a consequence, Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.33933 of 2014 and 11096 of 2015 are also required to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed.

45. Coming to the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15361 of 2015, the same is required to be allowed in view of the findings recorded by the High Court in I.A. No.11665 of 2015 which has become final by virtue of dismissal of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No.31051 of 2015. The same is accordingly allowed.

46. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

March 15, 2016.

Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.

(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.

[4] Order VI Rule 15. Verification of pleadings.— (1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.

(3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed.

(4) The person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings.