Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mahantesh S/O Naandayya Hiremath vs Sri. Vijaykumar S/O Siddappa Kannur on 5 October, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788
MFA No. 103453 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103453 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHANTESH
S/O NANDAYYA HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AMINGAD,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.M.NADAF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. VIJAYKUMAR
S/O SIDDAPPA KANNUR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AMINGAD,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587112.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAYALAXMI
VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT
M BHAT Date:
2. SRI. KUDLEPPA
2023.10.07
12:23:16
+0530
S/O VEERASANGAPPA CHITTARAGI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AMINGAD,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587112.
3. ELECTION RETURNING OFFICER
PATTAN PANCHAYAT AMINAGAD,
WARD NO. 9 TO 16,ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
P.W.D. DEPARTMENT, BAGALKOTE-587112.
4. TAHASILDAR HUNGUND
TQ: HUNGUND,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788
MFA No. 103453 of 2022
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587112.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT.
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOTE-587112.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2, R3-ARE NOTICE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.27 OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES
ACT, 1964, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN ELECTION
PETITION NO. 01/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT HUNGUND. TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.09.2022,
IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 01/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUNGUND, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
ELECTION PETITION AS PRAYED FOR., IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises from the order in Election Petition 1/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hungund.
2. The petitioner claims to be a voter in Ward No.16 of Amingad Pattan Panchayath and is aggrieved by the declaration of result in favour of the 1st respondent who is declared to be an elected candidate in panchayat election of Ward No.16 of Amingad Pattan Panchayath. The -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788 MFA No. 103453 of 2022 petition is filed to set-aside the election of respondent No.1 to Ward No.16 of Amingad Pattan Panchayath.
3. The contents of the petition would disclose that the petitioner is aggrieved by the claim of the 1st respondent who claimed to the eligible to contest to the election as member of Backward Class-B category. Petitioner has taken a stand that on account of the income declared by the 1st respondent before the Income Tax Authorities, he cannot claim the status of Backward Class- B category.
4. The petitioner's claim was seriously contested by the 1st respondent - elected candidate. He denied all the allegations. Pursuant to that the Court framed three issues which read as under:
1. Whether petitioner has made out grounds to declare the election of Respondent No.1 to the Ward No.16 of Amingad Pattan Panchayath as void and illegal?-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788 MFA No. 103453 of 2022
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for?
3. What order?
5. It can be noticed from the averments in the petition that the petitioner in paragraph 4 has furnished the details of certain properties standing in the name of 1st respondent and has also averred that there are certain other properties which stand in the name of the 1st respondent.
6. During the course of trial, it appears that the petitioner has secured the copy of the affidavit furnished by 1st respondent which is mandatory in terms of the direction issued by the Apex Court wherein the candidate who contests the election has to furnish the details of his assets and liabilities. It appears that during the course of evidence, the petitioner has made an attempt to make out case that the affidavit furnished by the 1st respondent does not disclose all the facts which are required to be disclosed and 1st respondent has suppressed certain material facts. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788 MFA No. 103453 of 2022 The respondent has contested the said contention sought to be made in the evidence of the petitioner and has also led evidence in support of his case wherein he has tried to make out a case that certain properties which are not disclosed in the affidavit were already released in favour of his parents. Thus, it appears that the parties have understood on what grounds the case is being fought, namely suppression of material fact and false declaration in the affidavit filed before the returning officer.
7. It is necessary to extract Order XIV Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under:
"3. Materials from which issues may be framed.- The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials:-
(a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties;
(b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit;
(c) the contents of documents produced by either party."-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788 MFA No. 103453 of 2022
8. Order XIV Rule 3 of CPC provides that Court may frame issues from all or any of the materials enumerated therein. On reading of the said provision, it is apparent that apart from the statement made on oath and from the pleadings or the answers to interrogatories, the Court can also frame the issues based on the contents of the documents produced by either parties.
9. On considering the evidence led before the trial Court and also on considering the documents placed before the trial Court, this Court is of the view that an issue is required to be framed relating to the corrupt practice alleged by the petitioner in his evidence. Accordingly, the following issue is framed:
"Whether the petitioner is able to establish that the 1st respondent indulged in corrupt practice by not furnishing the details of his assets and liabilities"?
10. Since this issue is not framed and no finding is recorded by the trial Court on this issue, this Court deems it appropriate to refer the matter to the trial Court by setting- -7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788 MFA No. 103453 of 2022 aside the impugned order. It is further made clear that after framing issues, the parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence in support of their respective claim on the said issue. It is also made clear that the parties are not entitled to amend either the petition or the statement of objections. This Court has further made it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits or claim of either of the parties. All contentions kept open to be tried afresh.
11. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hungund in Election Petition No.1/2022 is set-aside.
(ii) Appeal is allowed in part.
(iii) Since, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that more than two years have elapsed after the declaration of the election result, needless to state that the petition be decided -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788 MFA No. 103453 of 2022 expeditiously as the law also requires speedy disposal of election petitions.
(iv) Both the parties shall co-operate in early disposal of the petition and the trial court is also requested to make all endeavours to decide the matter on priority basis.
Sd/-
JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33