Orissa High Court
Babu Singh vs Ashoka Chandra Panda on 9 February, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
I.A. No.8 of 2025
(Arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024)
An application under Order 7, Rule 11 Order 7, Rule 14 &
Order 6, Rule 16 of the CPC, 1908 read with Section 81, 83 &
86 of the R.P. Act, 1951.
***
Babu Singh ...
Petitioner (Sole Respondent in ELPET No.18 of 2024)
-VERSUS-
Ashoka Chandra Panda ...
Opp. Party (Election Petitioner in ELPET No.18/2024). Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. B. Mishra, Senior Advocate.
Mr. B.S. Panigrahi, Adv.
For the Opp. Party : Mr. G.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate.
Ms. S. Srivastava, Adv.
P R E S E N T:I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 1 of 15
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 07.01.2026 :: Date of Order : 09.02.2026 O RDER ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This Interlocutory Application under Order 7 Rule 11, Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC, 1908 read with Section 81, 83 & 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951 has been filed by the respondent (Babu Singh) in Election Petition No.18/2024 praying for the dismissal of the Election Petition No.18 of 2024 filed by the Election Petitioner under the following grounds i.e.:
(I) neither the relied documents, (on the basis of which, the allegations have been alleged against the respondent), nor the contents thereof have been reflected in the body of the Election Petition with exact verbatim, or the copies of the said documents have been supplied to the respondent along with the copy of the Election Petition, for which, the Election Petition No.18/2024 has been filed by the Election Petitioner violating the mandatory requirements of Section 81(3) of the R.P. Act, 1951. Therefore, the pleadings in the Election Petition are incomplete and the Election Petition is bad for non-disclosure of complete cause of action. (II) The Election Petition of the Election Petitioner is not entertainable under law due to non-filing of the required affidavit in Form No.25 with the Election Petition as per the I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 2 of 15 requirements of Rule 94(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Filing of affidavit in Form 25 with the Election Petition was mandatory, as corrupt practices have been alleged against the respondent stating about the non-disclosure of all the properties and assets belonging to him (respondent), his spouse and his dependants in Form No.26 at the time of filing his nomination papers misleading as well as misinforming the voters. For which, the Election Petition of the Election Petitioner is in violation of Section 83(1) and 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951.
(III) Unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious pleadings in Para No.7(A) to 7(O) of the Election Petition, which shall affect the fair trial of the Election Case. For which, the same are liable for striking out as per Order 6, Rule 16 of the CPC, 1908.
(IV) absence and non-disclosure of complete cause of action, material facts and full particulars thereof and non- constitution of any triable issue in the Election Petition. (V) absence of required verification and affidavit in the Election Petition.
2. To which, the Election Petitioner objected stating in his objection that, he (Election Petitioner) has specifically indicated/reflected the contents of all the documents and annexures relied by him in his Election Petition No.18 of 2024. For which, the said documents cannot be treated as the integral part of his Election Petition. So, there is no requirement under law to provide the copies of the said documents and annexures to I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 3 of 15 the respondent along with the copies of the Election Petition. Because, the said documents are not the integral part of the Election Petition. For which, Election Petition of the Election Petitioner cannot be held as bad or defective for non-compliance of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951.
The copies of the Election Petition containing the contents of the documents relied by him (Election Petitioner) have already been served upon the Respondent along with the notices of the Election Petition. For which, the Election Petition No.18 of 2024 filed by the Election Petitioner does not fall under the trappings of Sub-Section (1) of Section 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951 for its dismissal as per Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951.
The documents those have been referred in the Election Petition by the Election Petitioner are available in the public domain i.e. in the Website of the Election Commission of India for its verification by all including the respondent. The pleadings made in the Election Petition do not lead to suppression of I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 4 of 15 material informations. The Election Petition is not bad for non- disclosure of any material fact.
Therefore, the I.A. filed by the respondent for the dismissal of the Election Petition at its threshold is liable to be dismissed.
3. I have already heard from the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in Election Petition No.18 of 2024 (petitioner in this I.A.) and the learned Senior Counsel for the Election Petitioner.
4. For the dismissal/rejection of the Election Petition (Opp. Party in this I.A), the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in the Election Petition relied upon the following decisions:
(I) 1983) 2 SCC 473: M. Karunanidhi Vs. Dr. H.V. Hande (II) 1986 (Supp.) SCC 315: Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi (III) (1989) 4 SCC 482: U.S. Sashidharan Vs. K. Karunakaran (IV) (2012) 11 SCC 390: Shambhu Prasad Sharma Vs. Charandas Mahanta & Ors.
(V) (2018) 4 SCC 699: Lok Prahari Vs. Union of India & Ors. (VI) (2022) 18 SCC 1: S. Rukmini Madegowda Vs. State Election Commission & Ors.
(VII) (2000) 2 SCC 249: V. Narayanswami Vs. C.P. Thirinavukarasu (VIII) AIR 1964 MP 273: Dwarka Prasad Mishra Vs. Kamalnarain Sharma (IX) High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore: E.P. No. 26/2019 decided on 30.09.2022: Mukesh Choudhary Vs. Tulsira Silawat & Ors.I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 5 of 15
(X) High Court of Bombay at Nagpur : EP No. 5/2014 decided on 12.12.2018: Kishore Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors.
(XI) High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur: AIR 2008 Raj. 41:
Umarddin Behleem Vs. Chandra Shekhar Baid & Ors. (XII) (1996) 5 SCC 181: Dr. Sipra (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Shanti Lal Khoiwal & Ors.
(XIII) (2000) 8 SCC 191: Ravinder Singh Vs. Janmeja Singh (XIV) (2012) 5 SCC 511: P.A. Mohammed Riyas Vs. M.K. Raghavan & Ors.
(XV) (2014) 10 SCC 547: C.P. John Vs. Babu M. Palissery (XVI) Judgement of Hon'ble Justice Shri Sashikanta Mishra in I.A. No. 111 of 2024 arising out of ELPET No. 7 of 2024 (XVII) Tankadhar Tripathy Vs. Dipali Das reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1793.
(XVIII) Judgement of Hon'ble Justice Shri Sashikanta Mishra in I.A. No. 6 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No. 8 of 2024 (XIX) Judgement dated 14.10.2025 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 28207 of 2025 (XX) 2025 INSC 992: decided on 14.08.2025 Ajmera Shyam vs. Smt. Kova Laxmi & Ors.
(XXI) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 519: Decided on 09.04.2024 Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang and Anr.
(XXII) 2024 INSC 282: decided on 08.04.2024 Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors (XXIII) 2023 INSC 571: decided on 19.05.2023 Senthibalaji V. Vs. A.P. Geetha & Ors (XXIV) 2023 INSC 499: decided on 04.05.2023 Kanimozhi Karunanidhi versus A Santhana Kumar & Ors (XXV) 2025: BHCOS13786: Ganesh Kumar Yadav versus Capt. R. Tamil Selvan & Ors passed in ELPET No. 36 of 2025 I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 6 of 15 by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Date of Judgement. 18.05.2025 (XXVI) Mahachandra Prasad Singh Versus Prof. Dr. Birendra Naryan Yadav passed in ELPET No. 01 of 2023 by Hon'ble High Court of Patna, Date of Judgement 09.05.2025 (XXVII) (2001) 8 SCC 233: Hari Shanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi On the contrary, for the dismissal of the I.A. filed by the respondent in Election Petition No.18 of 2024, the learned Senior Counsel for the Election Petitioner (Opp. Party in this I.A.) relied upon the following decisions:
I. (2005) 2 SCC 188 Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar Vs Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar and Ors.
II. (2015) 14 SCC 519 Para 10 to 13 Mohd. Akbar Vs Ashok Sahu and Ors.
III. (2002) 5 SCC 294: Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr-Para-1 to 6,18 to 22, 30, 38, 46 and 48 IV. (2003) 4 SCC 399: PUCL Vs UOI and Anr-Para-2 to 9, 17, 18, 70 to 73, 78 and 123 V. (2014) 14 SCC 189: Resurgence India Vs Election Commission of India and Anr-Para 1 to 9, 26 and 27 VI. (2014) 14 SCC 162: Kisan Shankar Kathore Vs Arun Dattatray Sawant and Ors-Para-1 to 5, 18, 32, 33, 36 to 39, 41 and 43 VII. (2017) 2 SCC 487 Mairembam Prthiviraj Vs Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh-Para 13, 18 to 23.
VIII. (1999) 3 SCC 267: D. Ramachandran Vs R. V. Janakiraman and OrsPara-4, 8, 9 and 10 I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 7 of 15 IX. (2012) 7 SCC 788: Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vs Kommuri Pratap Reddy and Ors - Para-5, 11, 13, 16, 22, 24 and 31 X. (2015) 8 SCC 331-P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. P. Neeradha Reddy.
XI. (2013) 4 SCC 776-G.M. Siddeswar Vs Prasanna Kumar. XII. (2022) 3 SCC 269-A. Manju Vs Prajwal Revanna and Ors. XIII. (2023) 17 SCC 500- Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh.
XIV. (2024) 4 SCC 299 K. Babu v. M. Swaraj XV. (2008) 11 SCC 740: Umesh Challiyill Vs K. P. Rajendran - Para 10 to 13, 19 and 20 XVI. AIR (1991) 3 SCC 375-F.A. Sapa and Ors Vs Singora and Ors,-Para-33 XVII. I.A. No. 68/2024 arising out of ELPET No. 11/2024 dtd. 16.05.2024 and Order dtd. 01.12.2025 passed in SLP (C) No. 21082/2025, XVIII. Judgment dtd. 28.11.2025 passed in I.A. No. 31/2025 arising out of ELPET No. 20/2024.
XIX. Judgment dtd. 28.11.2025 passed in I.A. No. 138/2024, I.A. No. 35/2025 and I.A. No. 36/2025 arising out of ELPET No. 12/2024
5. As per Law, an Election Petition shall only contain a concise statement of the material facts, on which, the Election Petitioner relies, but not the material particulars.
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
(a) In a case between Ramesh Rout Vs. Rabindra Nath Rout reported in 2012 (I) OLR (SC) 130 that, an Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of the I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 8 of 15 material facts, on which the Election Petitioner relies. (Para No.52)
(b) In a case between Ashraf Kokkur vs. K.V. Abdul Khader, Etc. at Para Nos.14 & 16 reported in 2014 (4) Civil Law Times Page-81 (SC) that, Election Petition need contain only concise statement of material facts and not material particulars.
6. The defective verification of the pleadings in the Election Petition shall not entail for dismissal of the Election Petition under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951, because, as per law, the defect in verification is a curable defect.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:
(a) In a case between K.K. Ramachandran Master Vs. M.V. Sriya Amakymar & Others reported in 2010 (2) CLR (SC) 302 that, defect in verification of pleadings in the Election Petition cannot be made liable for dismissal of the Election Petition under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951, because, such defects in verification are curable defects.
(b) In cases between Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Others reported in 2012 (3) CCC (SC) 21, T. Phungzathang Vs. Hangkhanlian & Others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 358 & Manohar Joshi Vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil reported in (1996) 1 SCC 169 that, a defect in the verification of the election petition or the affidavit accompanying the election petition was held to be curable, hence, not sufficient to I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 9 of 15 justify dismissal of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
7. It has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the catena of decisions that, when in the body of the Election Petition the contents of the documents and annexures relied by the Election Petitioner will not have been described, in that case, the said documents or Annexures of the Election Petition shall be the integral part of the Election Petition, but, when the contents of the documents or annexures relied by the Election Petitioner will have been described in the body of the Election Petition, in that case, the documents or annexures relied by the Election Petitioner shall not be the integral part of the Election Petition.
When the documents or annexures relied by the Election Petitioner will not have become the integral part of the Election Petition, in that case, non-supply of the copies of the documents or Annexures relied by the Election Petitioner in his Election Petition to the respondent with the notices of the Election Petition shall not entail for the dismissal of the Election Petition.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions: I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 10 of 15
(a) In a case between Ajay Maken Vs. Adesh Kumar Gupta & Another reported in 116 (2013) CLT 130 (SC) that, an annexure to an election petition, whose contents are not fully described in the body of the election petition would become the integral part of the Election Petition.
(b) In cases between Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar reported in 1968 (3) SCR 13 & M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Hande reported in 1983 (2) SCC 473 that, if an election petition contains annexures or schedules attached to it, whose content is not elaborately described in the body of the election petition, such annexures or schedules become an integral part of the election petition and, therefore, all the allegations contained in such schedules or annexures become allegations in the election petition.
8. That apart, non-compliance of the requirements of Section 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951 shall not entail for the dismissal of the Election Petition as per Section 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951. Because, Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 speaks only for the non- compliance of Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the R.P. Act, 1951.
The defects or non-compliance of Section 83 of the R.P. Act are always curable defects.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:
(a) In a case between K. Babu Vs. M. Swaraj & Others reported in 2024 (2) Civ.L.J 501 (SC) that, non-I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 11 of 15
compliance with requirements of Section 83, not fatal, because, Section 86(1) speaks only of non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 and 117 to be basis for dismissal of Election Petition. Defects or non-compliance with Section 83 are curable defects. (Para No.11)
(b) In a case between Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and Others reported in 2012 (7) SCC 788 that, when alleged defects are technical and curable, in that case, Election Petition cannot be rejected.
(c) In a case between Umesh Challiyil Vs. K.P. Rajendran reported in AIR 2008 SC 157 that, election petition cannot be dismissed summarily and in order to dismiss the election petition summarily, the defect ought to be fundamental and should go to the root of the matter.
(d) In a case between Shambhu Prasad Sharma Vs. Charandas Mahant & Others reported in 2012 (3) CCC page 69 (SC) that, defect in form of affidavit, not fatal unless it materially affected the result of the returned candidate.
(e) In a case between Manohar Joshi Vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Another reported in 1996(1) SCC 169 that, non-compliance with Section 81(3) the R.P. Act, 1951 is not fatal under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951.
9. An Election Petition cannot be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 on the ground that, the same lacks in material facts. An Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold, where there is substantial compliance of the provisions of R.P. Act, 1951.
I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 12 of 15
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:
(a) In a case between Narayan Jhanwar Vs. Sunil Jhanwar reported in 2024 (3) Civ.C.C. 638 (Raj) that, Election Petition cannot be dismissed on preliminary issue while deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 on the ground that, it lacks in material facts and did not disclose any cause of action.
(Para No.17)
(b) In a case between Kimneo Haokip Aokip Hangshing Vs. Kenn Raikhan & Others reported in 2024 (4) Civ.C.C. 302 (SC) that, Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is substantial compliance of provisions of R.P. Act, 1951. (Para No.7).
(c) In a case between G.M. Siddeshwar Vs. Prasanna Kumar reported in (2013) 4 SCC 776 that, whether an Election Petition is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold even if the allegations of corrupt practices of a returned candidate have not been given by a Petitioner in terms of the proviso in Section 83(1)(c) of R.P Act. If substantial compliance in terms of furnishing all that is required under the law has been given, the petition cannot be summarily dismissed.
(d) In a case between Eldeco Housing & Industries Limited Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi & Others reported in 2023 SCC online (SC) 1612 that, the merit of the controversy cannot be examined at the stage of the decision of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908.
I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 13 of 15
10. Election of a returned candidate should not normally be set aside at its threshold, unless cogent and convincing reasons are established after elicitation of the same from the oral and documentary evidence. Because, the success of a democratically winning candidate in the Election cannot lightly be interfered with at its very threshold.
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
(a) In a case between Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Another reported in 2011 (1) CCC 126 (SC) that, Election of a retuned candidate should not normally be set aside unless there are cogent and convincing reasons. The success of a winning candidate at an election cannot be lightly interfered with.
11. Here in this Election Petition at hand vide Election Petition No.18/2024, when the Election Petitioner has reflected/indicated the contents of the Annexures in the Election Petition along with the grounds/reasons alleged by him against the respondent praying for the declaration of the result of the election of the respondent as void, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, indicated in Para Nos.5 to 10 of this Judgment, the I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 14 of 15 grounds raised in this I.A. No.8/2025 by the respondent in Election Petition No.18/2024 have not been able for the dismissal of the Election Petition No.18/2024 filed by the Election Petitioner at this Stage.
For which, there is no merit in this I.A. The same must fail.
12. In result, this I.A. filed by the respondent in Election Petition No.18 of 2024 is dismissed on contest.
13. As such, this I.A. filed by the respondent in Election Petition No.18/2024 is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 09 .02. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 09-Feb-2026 17:49:15 I.A. No.8 of 2025 arising out of ELPET No.18 of 2024 Page 15 of 15