Bombay High Court
Dr. Rameshkumar Bapuraoji Gajbe vs The Election Commission Of India ... on 26 September, 2019
Author: Rohit B. Deo
Bench: R. B. Deo
1
cao1728.19.O.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) 1728 OF 2019
IN
ELECTION PETITION NO.6 OF 2019
(Rameshkumar Bapuraoji Gajbe Vs. The Election Commission of India, thr. its
Chairman O/o Nirvachan Bhavan, New Delhi and others)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Nihalsing B. Rathod, Advocate with Shri Barun Kumar, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Ms. Neerja G. Chaubey, Advocate for Respondent 1.
Shri S.Y. Deopujari, Government Pleader for Respondent 2/State.
Shri Sunil V. Manohar, Senior Counsel with Shri Parijat M. Pande, Advocate
for Respondent 3.
CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE: 26th SEPTEMBER, 2019.
This application is preferred by respondent 3 - elected candidate for rejection of the petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC').
The first reason put-forth for seeking time is that an application is moved before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to club the seven election petitions pending before this bench. The second reason given is that the petitioner has sought assistance of Senior Counsels with respect to the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC and their legal opinion is awaited.
Vide order dated 16.09.2019 this Court had directed the petitioner to file his response to the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC on or before ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:30:20 ::: 2 cao1728.19.O.odt 23.09.2019 and it was made clear that the application shall be heard on 26.09.2019.
I am satisfied that no cause is shown by the petitioner for seeking further time of four weeks to file reply to the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.
The letter and spirit of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act') is that an election petition shall be disposed of, as far as possible, within 180 days from its presentation. This petition is presented on 06.07.2019. This Court is also expected to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis (sub-section (6) of Section 86 of Act).
In any event, considering the scope and ambit of Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC it would be for the elected candidate to demonstrate that the election petition does not disclose cause of action. In this view of the matter, the petitioner shall not put to any prejudice or disadvantage or handicap due to the absence of reply to the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC since in the ultimate analysis this Court would be looking into and restricting itself to the averments in the election petition to ascertain whether the election petition does disclose a cause of action. I am therefore, not inclined to grant further time to file reply to the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. This application is therefore, rejected.
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 01:30:20 :::