Orissa High Court
Dr. Subash Mohapatra .... Election vs Dharmendra Pradhan & on 10 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ELPET No.30 of 2024
Dr. Subash Mohapatra .... Election
Petitioner
Mr. Akshaya Kumar Subudhi, Advocate
-versus-
Dharmendra Pradhan & .... Respondents
others
Mr. Sambit Mohanty, Advocate
Along with Ms. S. Srivastava, Advocate
(for Respondent No.1)
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
I.A. No.84 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order No. Date of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date of Order: 10.10.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. 1. This I.A has been filed by Dr. Mohapatra, the Election Petitioner seeking for following reliefs;
i) Investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other similar agency into the criminal misdeeds of Mr. Gopal Kumar Agarwal under monitoring of this Court.
ii) Restrain Mr. Gopal Kumar Agarwal from appearing in the present case so also in all other cases before this Court.
iii) Interim compensation of Rs. 10 crores to be paid by the Election Commission of India, as being a State Agency, he has used a mercenary under coverage of an advocate to cause injuries to the Election Petitioner.
2. The aforesaid prayers have been made on the grounds that Sri Gopal Kumar Agarwal appeared as the Counsel for the Respondent No.1 so also as Law Officer for the District Election Officer, Sambalpur on behalf of the Election Commissioner of India. He was subsequently designated as the Senior Counsel and he resigned from the position of the Law Officer to represent the Election Commissioner of India. Further, the Election Petitioner received information from the official source that Mr. Agarwal has no valid law degree and he managed to obtain a fake law certificate. Subsequently, he was enrolled as an advocate and, thereafter, he was designated as Senior Advocate. Such acts are originated from dishonest act committed by Mr. Agarwal.
2.1 It has also been urged in the application that being an unqualified person to be as advocate, exposing and impersonating himself publicly as an advocate by doing the acts of malfeasance and misfeasance so as to holding briefs from private individuals and government agencies though he is not qualified and/or fit for that; so also he impersonated himself as an advocate and subsequently designated as Senior Advocate. 2.2 It is the specific stand of the Petitioner that Mr. Agarwal has got LLB Degree from St. Mary's Law College in the year 1993 and enrolled as lawyer vide enrolment No.O-676-1993 dated 03.10.1993. Mr. Agarwal claimed Page 2 of 25 publicly that he has law degree from Utkal University. The said law college is not recognized, permitted and/or affiliated with the authorities concerned i.e., Government of Odisha, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, University Grants Commission, New Delhi and Bar Council of India, New Delhi as required under law.
2.3 It has further been averred that, Mr. Agarwal appeared not only for the Respondent No.1 as an Advocate without duly completing his law degree but also appeared for the Election Commissioner of India with intent to injure the Election Petitioner. Mr. Agarwal moved I.A. No.62 of 2024 dated 22.10.2024 in ELPET No.30 of 2024 with a prayer to allow him to open the strong room, remove the EVMs and VVPATs for future election and other purposes. Mr. Agarwal is not qualified to appear as counsel for the Election Commissioner of India/District Election Officer, as he has no proper law degree, as required under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Bar Council of India Rules. The Election Commissioner of India allegedly used Mr. Gopal Kumar Agarwal, as a mercenary against the Election Petitioner in the judicial proceeding/trial of ELPET No.30 of 2024. The Election Commissioner of India being a State Party has used a mercenary against a citizen, in the instant case, the Election Petitioner; and violated access to fair trial and the principle of equal treatment as enshrined in the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though being aggrieved by the aforesaid acts of the Election Commissioner of India, the Election Petitioner approached it by giving a written representation on dated 17.05.2025 Page 3 of 25 seeking its immediate intervention for the impartial investigation into the matter of engagement of Mr. Agarwal as its Counsel and interim relief of Rs.10 Crores against the injuries allegedly caused to the Election Petitioner and such representation was duly received in the Office of the Election Commissioner of India on 21.05.2025. Because of the inaction of the Election Commissioner of India on the said representation submitted by the Election Petitioner, he was being constrained to approach this Court in form of present I.A.
3. Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, has filed a written objection opposing to the prayers made in the I.A. stating therein that, similar allegations were also raised in ELPET No.23 of 2024, wherein this Court vide judgment dated 18.02.2025, held that, a prayer for disengagement of a lawyer in a judicial proceeding can only be made by the client or the Advocate concerned and in absence of such a request, Court cannot pass any order in that respect. So far as allegation pertaining to his eligibility to practice law, it was contented that, he holds a valid LLB degree from Utkal University and was dully enrolled as an Advocate under the Odisha State Bar Council, bearing Enrolment No.676 of 1993, after following all requisite formalities under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Odisha State Bar Council Rules, relevant documents of which have been annexed as Annexure- Y series to the objection.
4. Further, it was also objected on the ground that, the validity of an Advocate's license falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the respective State Bar Council and the Page 4 of 25 same cannot be adjudicated in an Election Petition. Thus, the reliefs sought for are fully misconceived and beyond the scope of this Court.
5. It was also contended that, the allegations made by the Election Petitioner are vague, malice and without any substantial material. The Election Petitioner is accused of repeatedly using intemperate/opprobrious language in the I.A not only referring to a designated Senior Counsel but also against the Election Commissioner of India, a constitutional body, amounting to gross abuse of judicial forum. Such defamatory and derogatory allegations leveled against him warrant initiation of contempt proceeding against the Election Petitioner as well as dismissal of the present I.A. with exemplary costs.
6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that, since, neither Mr. Agarwal nor the Election Commissioner of India, against whom the reliefs have been sought for by the Election Petitioner in this application, has been arrayed as a party to this Election Petition, the I.A. deserves to be dismissed. He further submitted that none of the reliefs sought for comes within the purviews of Sections 82, 84, 98 or 99 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which is a self contained code.
7. So far as the prayer regarding CBI investigation into alleged criminal misdeeds of designated Senior Counsel, on perusal of record, it is ascertained that the Election Petitioner has failed to produce any substantial material to warrant such an extraordinary relief. Thus, the Page 5 of 25 relief sought for is misconceived and appears to be vexatious in nature.
8. So far as the prayer to restrain Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel from appearing in ELPET No.30 of 2024 so also in other cases, in Lalit Kumar Behera Vs. Dhruba Charan Sahu & Others vide order dated 18.02.2025 passed in I.A. No.126 of 2024 (arising out of ELPET No.23 of 2024), it was held by the Coordinate Bench that, a Court has no jurisdiction to restrain an Advocate from appearing on behalf his client in a proceeding. Appointment of an Advocate can be terminated only with the leave of the Court sought in writing by the client or the Advocate himself. Paragraph 6 of the said order is reproduced below for ready reference;
"6. According to the aforesaid clarified dictionary meaning of "conflict of interest", the same is between advocate and his client, but, not between the advocate and any third party. It is the settled propositions of law that, when a counsel forms an opinion that, a conflict of interest exists between him and his client by his engagement as a counsel in a case, in that case, it is his paramount duty to advise the client to engage some other lawyer in his place.
An advocate is appointed only by a document in writing and signed by the litigant or his duly authorized agent. The appointment of an advocate by his/her client continues his/her engagement throughout the pendency of the proceeding. The appointment of an advocate can be brought to an end by the client or by the advocate himself, but, his engagement does not come to an end without the leave of the Court sought by the client or the advocate himself and that too, the leave for disengagement of a lawyer by a client must be sought for Page 6 of 25 before the Court in writing. Unless the leave of the Court is sought in writing, the advocate will continue on record for representing his client. Therefore, in order to terminate the appointment of an advocate by his client, permission of Court is necessary, if the advocate himself does not give consent for his termination."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. It may not be out of place to mention here that, recently, a similar petition with identical prayer stood rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 passed in I.A. No.100 of 2025 (arising out of ELPET No.29 of 2024) with the following observations.
"10. So far as the prayer to prevent Mr. Agarwal from appearing in ELPET No.29 of 2024 and connected matters, admittedly, there is no dispute regarding enrolment of Mr. Gopal Agarwal as a lawyer with the Bar Council of Orissa and designating him as a Senior Counsel by the Full Court. Rather, the allegation is regarding his law degree, which is the basis to enroll him as a lawyer by the Bar Council. It is revealed from the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in OJC No. 3817 of 1992, the issue regarding affiliation of St. Marry's Law College was dealt with by passing a detailed order on 23.09.1992.
11. Further, in view of the provisions enshrined under Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, this Court is of the view that, if a person is enrolled as an Advocate by any of the State Bar Councils, he is entitled to practice in all Courts, including the Supreme Court. A Court has no jurisdiction to restrain an Advocate to represent his client in a proceeding, unless it is proved to the contrary that he is not an Advocate.
Appointment of an Advocate can be terminated only with the leave of the Court sought in Page 7 of 25 writing by the client or the Advocate himself/herself.
12. In view of the discussions so also the settled position of law, as detailed above, this Court is of the view that, the prayer of Dr. Mohapatra to implead Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, as a party to the I.A, who is not a party to the Election Petition, is legally impermissible and misconceived. This Court is of further view that, since Dr. Mohapatra, prima facie, has failed to satisfy this Court that Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel was never enrolled as a lawyer with the Odish State Bar Council, no order can be passed by this Court, restraining him to represent the party, who has engaged him. Hence, this Court is of the view that the prayers to restrain Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, from appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 in the Election Petition so also to direct the Advocates not to assist him in the present proceeding are misconceived and devoid of merit."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. As regards to the third relief regarding interim compensation of Rs.10 crores from the Election Commission of India, it is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction exercisable under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Furthermore, the Election Commissioner of India has not been impleaded as a party to the main Election Petition.
11. Law is well settled that interim applications are ancillary to the main proceedings, and reliefs therein can only be sought against parties to the substantive cause of action. Therefore, the prayer made against the Election Commission of India is without jurisdiction and liable to be rejected.
Page 8 of 2512. In K.V. Rao v. B.N. Reddi, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 285, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"11. Even though Section 87(1) of the Act lays down that the procedure applicable to the trial of an election petition shall be like that of the trial of a suit, the Act itself makes important provisions of the Code inapplicable to the trial of an election petition. Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC a court of law trying the suit has very wide powers in the matter of allowing amendments of pleadings and all amendments which will aid the court in disposing of the matters in dispute between the parties are as a rule allowed subject to the law of limitation. But Section 86(5) of the Act provides for restrictions on the power of the High Court to allow amendments. The High Court is not to allow the amendment of a petition which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition. With regard to the addition of parties which is possible in the case of a suit under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 subject to the added party's right to contend that the suit as against him was barred by limitation when he was impleaded, no addition of parties is possible in the case of an election petition except under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 86. Section 82 shows who are necessary parties to an election petition which must be filed within 45 days from the date of election as laid down in Section 81. Under Section 86(1) it is incumbent on the High Court to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82. Again the High Court must dismiss an election petition if security for costs be not given in terms of Section 117 of the Act."
(Emphasis supplied) Page 9 of 25
13. In view of the above, all the prayers made in the I.A., being devoid of merit, stand rejected. Accordingly, the I.A stands dismissed.
(S. K. MISHRA) JUDGE I.A. Nos.85 & 86 of 2025 Order No.
29. 1. I.A. No.85 of 2025 has been filed by the Election Petitioner with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 passed by this Court in I.A No.02 of 2025 as well as to restore the I.A. No.2 of 2025 to its file.
2. I.A No.86 of 2025 has been filed by the Election Petitioner for condonation of delay in filing I.A No.85 of 2025.
3. So far as application for condonation of delay, in para-2 of the said application, it has been stated that the said application shall be read as part and parcel of the application seeking restoration of I.A. No.2 of 2025. The sum and substance of the application in I.A No.86 of 2025 is that, the Election Petitioner was prevented from participating in the hearing of the I.A. No.2 of 2025 as he was performing sudhikriyas of his elders, being the only male member of his family, between 28th December 2024 and 21st April 2025.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has filed written objections on 23.07.2025 opposing to the maintainability of both the I.As. So far as I.A No.86 of 2025 is concerned, it is contented that, the provisions of the Page 10 of 25 Limitation Act, 1963, including Section 5 thereof, are not applicable to proceedings under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
5. So far as I.A. No. 85 of 2025 for restoration of I.A. No. 2 of 2025 is concerned, it is contented that, the I.A. No. 2 of 2025 was dismissed on 28.03.2025 due to deliberate non-appearance of both the Election Petitioner as well as his counsel and the assertion regarding dismissal of the I.A. as infructuous was also denied as blatantly false. Further, despite multiple undertakings by the Election Petitioner, no copy of the I.A. No.2 of 2025 was ever served upon the Respondent No.1 or his counsel and the said fact, though admitted by the Election Petitioner, was omitted in the present application leading to suppression of material facts.
6. It is also contended that, though the Election Petitioner appeared in person on 12.05.2025 and had sufficient opportunity thereafter, the Petitioner failed to file an application for setting aside the earlier dismissal order dated 28.03.2025 until I.A. No.2 of 2025 was moved. No plausible or satisfactory explanation has also been provided for the inordinate delay.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that, an application seeking condonation of delay must explicitly disclose the total period of delay so also provide a satisfactory explanation for each and every single day of delay. However, the present application for condonation of delay fails to indicate the length of delay either in the pleadings or in the prayer and offers no such Page 11 of 25 detailed explanation.
8. The law is well settled that election petitions are special proceedings governed entirely by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder. The Supreme Court in K.V. Rao v. B.N. Reddi, (1969) 1 SCR 679 held that, the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings like an Election Petition, as the Representation of the People Act is a complete and self- contained code which does not admit of the introduction of the principles or the provisions of law contained in the Indian Limitation Act. In Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, (1974) 2 SCC 133, it was held that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to election petitions or to proceedings arising therefrom, unless specifically provided.
9. In Gurubux Singh Ahlubalia Vs. Sanatan Mahakud, reported in 2024 (III) ILR-CUT-539, this Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay so also Election Petition holding that even 1 day delay in presenting an Election Petition is not condonable.
10. This Court is of the view that, though prayer made in I.A. No. 86 of 2025 pertains to some other issue, still it being a part and parcel of an Election Petition, is to be governed by the Representation of People Act, 1951. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the present proceedings. Consequently, I.A. No. 85 of 2025, seeking restoration of dismissal order dated 28.03.2025 passed in I.A No.2 of 2025, is liable to be dismissed, being beyond the period of limitation and devoid Page 12 of 25 of merit.
11. Accordingly, both the I.As stand dismissed.
(S. K. MISHRA) JUDGE I.A. Nos.94 & 95 of 2025 Order No.
30. 1. I.A. No.94 of 2025 has been filed by the Election Petitioner seeking impleadment of certain officials of the State of Odisha, namely, the Director General of Police(DGP), Deputy Commissioner of Police(DCP),Cuttack so also the Inspector-In-Charge of Lalbag Police Station, Cuttack to the said Interlocutory Application for the limited purpose of adjudication of the said Application. It has further been prayed to direct the State of Odisha to register an FIR and submit the report under Rules 2 and 3 of Odisha Submission of Final Form by Police Officers Rules, 2025, so also to direct investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation or any other similar Agency to assess the threat perception and provide security to the Election Petitioner for protection of his life, liberty and security under monitoring of this Court, with other ancillary prayers, as detailed in I.A.
2. Similarly, I.A. No.95 of 2025 has been filed to implead Mr. Gopal Kumar Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel as a party to the said Application and invoke inherent power and jurisdiction under Rule 11 of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 to ensure the sanctity of this Court.
Page 13 of 253. The Respondent No.1 has filed separate written objections opposing to the maintainability of both the I.As on the ground that the Petitioner, by resorting to derogatory and defamatory language aimed at a designated Senior Advocate, who is not even a party to the dispute, has prayed so, which falls within the mischief of criminal contempt.
4. Such a prayer has also been objected on the ground that the reliefs sought in both the I.As pertain to impleadment of parties to the I.A. so also issues concerning FIR and criminal proceedings fall entirely outside the ambit of Section 82 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that, the I.As being filed under Chapter VI, Rule 27 of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948, do not qualify as interim or interlocutory applications having nexus with the subject matter of the main Election Petition.
6. So far as the prayer made in I.A No. 95 of 2025, leaned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 further submitted that, the Election Petitioner, who lacks valid credentials, is posing as a lawyer in ELPET No.29 of 2024 so also in other proceedings before this Court. He is maliciously defaming the Respondent No.1 so also a designated Officer of this Court, who has been diligently assisting the Court for over three decades as a lawyer. Thus, the conduct of the Election Petitioner warrants contempt proceedings, dismissal of the present I.As with exemplary costs, so also a prosecution under section 379 of BNSS, 2023 for filing Page 14 of 25 false affidavit.
7. It is the settled position of law that interim applications are ancillary to the main proceedings, and reliefs therein can only be sought against parties to the substantive cause of action.
8. In K.V. Rao v. B.N. Reddi, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 285, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"11. Even though Section 87(1) of the Act lays down that the procedure applicable to the trial of an election petition shall be like that of the trial of a suit, the Act itself makes important provisions of the Code inapplicable to the trial of an election petition. Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC a court of law trying the suit has very wide powers in the matter of allowing amendments of pleadings and all amendments which will aid the court in disposing of the matters in dispute between the parties are as a rule allowed subject to the law of limitation. But Section 86(5) of the Act provides for restrictions on the power of the High Court to allow amendments. The High Court is not to allow the amendment of a petition which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition. With regard to the addition of parties which is possible in the case of a suit under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 subject to the added party's right to contend that the suit as against him was barred by limitation when he was impleaded, no addition of parties is possible in the case of an election petition except under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 86. Section 82 shows who are necessary parties to an election petition which must be filed within 45 days from the date of election as laid down in Section
81. Under Section 86(1) it is incumbent on the High Court to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82. Again the High Court must dismiss an election petition if security for costs be not given in terms of Section 117 of the Act."
(Emphasis supplied) Page 15 of 25
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the Respondent No.1 so also the settled position of law, this Court is of the view that, the prayer of the Election Petitioner to implead the State Officials so also a Senior Advocate, who are not parties to the main Election Petition, is legally impermissible. The other ancillary prayers, including directions for registration of FIR as well as the security arrangement are extraneous to the limited jurisdiction of this Court in an Election Petition.
10. Accordingly, both the I.As stand dismissed.
(S. K. MISHRA) JUDGE I.A. No.102 of 2025
31. 1. This application has been filed by the Election Petitioner to recall the order No.24 dated 17.07.2025 passed in I.A No. 90 of 2025 and I.A. No.94 of 2025, arising out of ELPET No. 30 of 2024, with a further prayer to direct the Advocates in this Election Petition not to entertain strangers to interfere in the proceedings in the Court unauthorized and unwarrantedly.
2. The sum and substance of the interim application is that, I.A. No.90 of 2025, seeking for initiation of proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Election Petitioner, was filed by Mr. Gopal Kumar Agarwal allegedly in violation of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948. The Applicant asserts that Mr. Agarwal Page 16 of 25 misrepresented himself as a Petitioner and filed the contempt application without having any right or the required consent of the Advocate General as mandated under Rule 2(c), read with Rule 7(a) of Chapter XVII of the High Court Rules, 1948.
3. It has been further alleged that, on 30.06.2025 when the matter was taken up for consideration, this Court issued notice in the contempt proceeding without recording the submissions of the Election Petitioner regarding maintainability of the interim application so also without affording a fair opportunity of hearing to him. Further, it has also been alleged that, despite repeated requests to consider the matter on merit, this Court proceeded to permit withdrawal of the I.A No.90 of 2025 on 17.07.2025 based on a memo filed by Respondent No.1, who is neither the deponent nor the applicant in I.A. No.90 of 2025 without the strict and mandatory compliance enumerated under Rules 24 and 27A of Rules of High Court of Orissa, 1948.
4. In response, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that, on 17.07.2025, the I.A. No. 90 of 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn only after adjudication of the matter on merit with an observation that, an I.A. arising out an I.A is not maintainable.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Vijay Pal Singh and Others, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 584, submitted that, the Opposite Party (in the present context, the Petitioner) has no right to object Page 17 of 25 withdrawal of a petition, in absence of a prayer for liberty to file an application afresh.
6. As regards I.A. No. 94 of 2025, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 referred to the order dated 17.07.2025 and submitted that it speaks for itself and requires no further elaboration.
7. On perusal of records, it is evident that I.A. No. 90 of 2025 was presented in the Court on 30.06.2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.07.2025, based on a Memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1. This Court, after forming a prima facie view regarding maintainability, permitted such withdrawal. The operative portion of the Orders dated 30.06.2025 and 17.07.2025, being relevant, are reproduced below;
"Order dated 30.06.2025
2. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 files Objection Affidavit in Response to I.A. No.84 of 2025, an IA. in I.A. No.84 of 2025, arising out of ELPET No.30 of 2024, to initiate proceeding under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Election Petitioner and another I.A. seeking time to file Objection to LA. Nos.85 & 86 of 2025 filed by the Election Petitioner till disposal of I.A. No.84 of 2025. Copies of the same are handed over to the Election Petitioner, who received the said Objection as well as I.A.s with objection. Office is directed to register both the I.As and keep the same on record.
3. Mr. Mohanty, also files the Judgment reported in (1980) 3 see 311 (Advocate General, State of Bihar Vrs. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries & another) so also judgment reported in 1990 See OnLine Kar 563 (Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co- operative Society Ltd. Vrs. Muneerappa) to substantiate the prayer made in the I.A. for initiation of contempt proceeding against the Election Petitioner. The same be kept on record.
4. The Election Petitioner, who is Page 18 of 25 present in person, undertakes to file objection to both the I.A.s. by 04.07.2025 after handing over copies of the same to the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1."
"Order dated 17.07.2025
2. Though an Objection has been filed by the Election Petitioner in response to I.A. No.90 of 2025 filed by the Respondent No-1 opposing to such prayer in the I.A., this Court is of the prima facie view that the said I.A., arising out of an I.A, is not maintainable, as in the cause title of the said I.A., it has been indicated that the same is arising out of I.A. No.84 of 2025. However, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 prays for the withdrawal of I.A No.90 of 2025 and files a memo to the said effect in the court, which be kept on record. Accordingly, I.A. stands dismissed as withdrawn."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. At this juncture, it is apt to reproduce below the provisions enshrined under Order XXIII Rule (1) sub-Rule (3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file afresh, subject to the satisfaction and conditions imposed by the Court.
"(3) Where the Court is satisfied,--
(a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or
(b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of suit or part of a claim, It may, on such terms as it thinks fit grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim."
(Emphasis supplied) Page 19 of 25
9. Paragraph Nos.23 to 25 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh (supra), being relevant, are extracted below;
"23. In our considered opinion, when the plaintiff files an application under Order 23 Rule 1 and prays for permission to withdraw the suit, whether in full or part, he is always at liberty to do so and in such case, the defendant has no right to raise any objection to such prayer being made by the plaintiff except to ask for payment of the costs to him by the plaintiff as provided in sub-rule (4).
24. The reason is that while making a prayer to withdraw the suit under Rule 1(1), the plaintiff does not ask for any leave to file a fresh suit on the same subject- matter. A mere withdrawal of the suit without asking for anything more can, therefore, be always permitted. In other words, the defendant has no right to compel the plaintiff to prosecute the suit by opposing the withdrawal of suit sought by the plaintiff except to claim the costs for filing a suit against him.
25. However, when the plaintiff applies for withdrawal of the suit along with a prayer to grant him permission to file a fresh suit on the same subject-matter as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 then in such event, the defendant can object to such prayer made by the plaintiff. In such event, it is for the court to decide as to whether the permission to seek withdrawal of the suit should be granted to the plaintiff and, if so, on what terms as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. However, in the present case, as no such liberty was sought by the Respondent No.1, this Court is of the view that no right of objection accrues in favour of the Election Petitioner to oppose such prayer.
Page 20 of 2511. Having regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, the legal provisions so also the settled position of law as detailed above, this Court is of the considered view that, there is no infirmity in the order dated 17.07.2025.As regards the prayer to restrain unauthorized persons from interfering in the Court proceedings, the same pertains to a separate issue, which is not germane to the present application and is therefore, devoid of merit.
12. Accordingly, the I.A stands dismissed.
(S. K. MISHRA) JUDGE I.A. No.103 of 2025
32. 1. This application has been filed by the Election Petitioner with a prayer to initiate suo motu civil contempt proceeding against the Respondent No.1 for alleged deliberate false statement/ willful non-compliance of the undertaking dated 17.07.2025 to file objections to I.A. No. 85 of 2025, 86 of 2025, 94 of 2025 and 95 of 2025 by 21.07.2025.
2. The aforesaid prayer has been made on the ground that, the Election Petitioner has filed I.A.Nos. 85 of 2025,86 of 2025, 94 of 2025 and 95 of 2025, to which the Respondent No.1 undertook to file objections by 21.07.2025. Accordingly, the matter was posted for hearing to 23.07.2025 with the consent of the Election Petitioner, despite the requirement under Rule 24, Chapter VI of the Orissa High Court Rules,1948 that, affidavits shall be Page 21 of 25 served at least seven days prior to the hearing. However, the Objections to I.A. Nos. 85 of 2025 and 86 of 2025 were received by the Election Petitioner only at 13:38 hours on 22.07.2025, which is beyond the timeline undertaken before this Court. Further, no Objections to I.A. Nos. 94 of 2025 and 95 of 2025 were served on the Election Petitioner within the stipulated period. It has also been alleged that, the Respondent No.1 sought time before this Court to file Objections to I.A. Nos.85 of 2025 and 86 of 2025 on 17.07.2025, which was granted with a direction to file the same by 21.07.2025. However, it was found that, the Objections to I.A. Nos.85 of 2025 and 86 of 2025 were notarized on 15.07.2025 prior to the said order dated 17.07.2025, raising serious concerns regarding the authenticity of the documents and possible willful disobedience of the undertaking given to this Court. The Election Petitioner has further alleged that, such conduct of the Respondent No.1 amounts to a deliberate attempt to undermine the dignity, authenticity and sanctity of this Court.
3. In response, the Respondent No.1 has filed a written objection opposing to the maintainability of the interim application stating therein that, allegations against a designated Senior Counsel of the Bar, who is not even a party to the dispute, are defamatory so also amount to misconduct attracting provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Further, the repeated filing of interlocutory applications during the pendency of hearing of application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking relief beyond the Page 22 of 25 scope of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is a manifest attempt to obstruct the judicial proceedings.
4. It is further clarified in the written objection that, as the Respondent was stationed at New Delhi during the Parliamentary Session, the Affidavit could not be sworn and the Objections to the I.As could not be filed in time, as undertaken.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that, non-filing of written statement or objections, despite an undertaking, cannot be considered as an act of contempt, as the Answering Party has discretion to file or not to file an Objection. Further, in absence of such Objections, there is no bar for the Court to proceed with the application in accordance with law.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 further submitted that, there has been no non-compliance, as alleged, as on 23.07.2025 the Respondent No.1 filed I.A. No. 104 of 2025 seeking time to file Objections to the aforesaid I.As, in which liberty was granted to the Respondent No.1 that pendency of the said I.A shall not be a bar for the Respondent No.1 to file Objections before the next date of listing. Thus, the prayer for initiation of contempt proceeding is unfounded, frivolous, misconceived and liable to be rejected.
7. On perusal of records, it is ascertained that this Court, vide order dated 19.08.2025, noted and addressed the conduct of the Election Petitioner with regard to repeated filing of unnecessary applications aimed at protracting the proceeding in the Election Petition.
Page 23 of 25Paragraph 17 of the Order dated 19.08.2025, being relevant, is extracted below for ready reference;
"17. As detailed above, all the seven I.As. filed by the Election Petitioner, excepting I.A. No. 10 of 2025 filed by the Respondent No-1 under Order -7 Rule-11, were fixed to today for consideration. Admittedly, the prayers made in almost all the I.As., have no relevance with the present lis. Such prayers are not only scandalous but also aims at maligning and undermining the constitutional authority, such as the Election Commission of India and casting aspersions against the Senior Counsel and individuals, which are ex facie not germane to the prayer made in the Election Petition. This Court finds that the Election Petitioner is in the habit of filing petitions after petitions to create a stumbling block and thereby not allowing this Court to proceed further to deal and dispose of the main issue involved in the Election Petition for speedy dispensation of justice. Today also, when the matter is fixed for hearing on all the I.As, clearly indicating vide the previous order dated 23.07.2025 that no further unnecessary petitions shall be entertained by this Court, which are not germane to the subject matter of the Election Petition, instead of cooperating with the Court for early disposal of the Election Petition, the Election Petitioner, who appears in person, has come up with a new strategy to delay the adjudication of the main lis between the parties, on the plea of filing a writ petition for transfer of proceeding to some other Court without disclosing before this Court the reasons to do so. However, in view of the submission made by the Election Petitioner regarding filing of writ petition, which has allegedly been registered as D- W.P(C)/33428 /dt 19-08-2025, the Election Petition stands adjourned."
(Emphasis supplied) Page 24 of 25
8. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that, the present application is yet another attempt by the Election Petitioner to delay the expeditious disposal of the Election Petition. Thus, the application for initiation of contempt proceeding, being devoid of any substantive merit, is liable to be rejected.
9. This Court is of further view that, all the applications filed by the Election Petitioner, as detailed above, are frivolous and constitute an unwarranted wastage of the valuable judicial time of this Court. That apart, the conduct of the Election Petitioner is in contravention of the mandate under Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which entails expeditious disposal of Election Petitions. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to impose costs on the Election Petitioner for filing such frivolous applications. Accordingly, costs of Rs.10,000/-( ten thousand only) is imposed on the Election Petitioner, to be deposited with the Orissa High Court Advocates' Welfare Fund within two weeks hence and proof of such deposit shall be filed with the Registry within the said period.
10. Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed with costs.
Prasant (S. K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Page 25 of 25
Date: 10-Oct-2025 14:58:53