Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sureshchandra Bhandari vs Smt. Neena Vikram Verma on 3 December, 2019
Author: Vandana Kasrekar
Bench: Vandana Kasrekar
:1:
M.C.C.No.1736-2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH
M.C.C.No.1736-2019
(Suresh Chandra Bhandari vs. Smt.Neena Vikram Verma)
Indore, Dated: 03/12/2019
Petitioner is present in person.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard.
The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition for compliance of decree passed by this Court in Election Petition No.31/2014 dated 20.11.2017.
The petitioner has filed an Election Petition No.31/2014 before this Court challenging the election of the respondent. The said petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2017 by issuing the following directions:-
"Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The Election of respondent No.1 is declared void.
Cost of the petitioner shall be borne by respondent No.1and remaining respondents shall bear their own cost.
Counsel fee is quantified at Rs.10,000/- if certified."
The said order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2017 and the operation of impugned order was stayed for a period of 45 days so that return candidate can approach Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the final order by filing the :2: M.C.C.No.1736-2019 appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The respondent No.1 thereafter filed SLP No.20916/2017 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 13.12.2017 was pleased to issue notice and the operation of the impugned order was stayed. The said stay order was continued till the final order dated 2.7.2019. Thereafter, SLP was disposed off, vide order dated 2.7.2019 with the following directions:-
"Fresh elections have been held. The appellant has got elected. The impugned order emanates from a finding that the nomination of the appellant was not in order, naturally a position disputed by the appellant. Be that as it may, it has no real ramification or lis surviving now since the fresh elections have been held. Really speaking the impugned order would have no consequences.
Learned counsel for the appellant however, insists that there may be some issue about the benefit which has accrued to the appellant.
The respondent is a Voter; we are not inclined to into this issue.
The appeal accordingly stands
disposed off."
Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 provides for appeals to Supreme Court and the period of limitation for filing SLP is 30 days from the date of order passed by the High Court and this period may be extended on showing :3: M.C.C.No.1736-2019 sufficient cause. The Apex Court in its order dated 2.7.2019 has clearly stated that the impugned order would have no consequence. However, as the respondent has failed to comply with the order passed by this Court, the present application has been filed under Order 20 Rule 6, 6-A 7, Order 20-A Rule 11 (c) and (e) of C.P.C. for execution of the said decree.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that theory of the merger be applicable with the present case. This Court while allowing the Election Petition, has directed the petitioner to bear the cost of the litigation and also pay Rs.10,000/- towards the counsel fee to the petitioner. He submits that, against the said order, S.L.P. was filed and in the said SLP vide order dated 2.7.2019, the Apex Court has clearly stated that the impugned order would have no consequence. Thus, the order passed by this Court has been merged into final order passed by the Apex Court. Therefore, there is no question of payment of any amount to the petitioner. Further the order passed in the Election petition cannot be termed as a decree. The term decree has been defined under Section 2 of the C.P.C, which reads as under :-
Section 2: Definitions - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:-
:4:
M.C.C.No.1736-2019
(1) 'Code' includes rules;
(2) 'decree' means the formal expression of an
adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include-
(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or
(b) any order of dismissal for default.
Explanation- A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit, it may be partly preliminary and partly final.' Thus, as per the order passed in an Election Petition cannot be termed as a decree. As provisions of Order 20 Rule 6, 6-A, 7, Order 20-A Rule 11 (c) and (e) of C.P.C. are not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner for executing the order is itself not maintainable.
In view of the aforesaid, the present contempt petition stands dismissed.
(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) JUDGE moni Digitally signed by Moni Raju Date: 2019.12.05 17:01:18 -08'00'