Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laddu Ram Kori vs Jajpal Singh Jajii on 6 July, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Election Petition No. 08 of 2019
Gwalior, dated: 06/7/2023
Mr R.D. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sangam
Jain and Mr. Ajay Bhargav, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Surendra Singh Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.
1.
Heard the parties on I.A. No. 2292 of 2023, an application for deleting issue Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 9 and objection raised by learned counsel for the election petitioner for exhibiting the document (copy of Writ Petition No. 4794 of 2020).
2. By filing I.A. No. 2292 of 2023, it is submitted by respondent No. 1 that the instant petition has been filed challenging the scheduled castes status of respondent No. 1 contending that respondent No. 1 does not fall under NAT Scheduled Caste category. The election petitioner has also challenged final verdict of Madhya Pradesh High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 18.12.2019, validating the NAT Scheduled Caste status of respondent No. 1, by filing Writ Petition No. 4794 of 2020, which was allowed by order dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY 12.12.2020, whereby order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Caste NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 07-07-2023 10:31:23 AM 2 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Election Petition No. 08 of 2019 Scrutiny Committee has been quashed. The order dated 12.12.2020 was challenged by respondent No. 1 in Writ Appeal No. 1668 of 2022 in which the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2020 has stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 12.12.2020 passed in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the election petition is trying to get simultaneous relief from two different forums of this High Court on the same issue. Under these circumstances, the issues framed challenging the caste of respondent No. 1 should be deleted and pleadings based on that issue should be struck off because continuation of instant election petition on that basis will be abuse of the process of Court and also wasting the valuable time of this Court.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the application (I.A. No. 2292 of 2023) by filing its reply and argued that the present application is filed malafidely just to delay the process in this petition. It is further argued that this petition is based on the wrong information given by respondent No. 1 while filing his nomination papers in respect to his caste status, therefore, the Signature Not Verified issues in respect to the caste status of respondent No. 1 are Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 07-07-2023 10:31:23 AM 3 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Election Petition No. 08 of 2019 necessary for deciding the election petition. Further argument is that earlier also, the maintainibility of this petition had been challenged by respondent No. 1 by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 & Section 10 of CPC which were dismissed. Now respondent No. 1 is raising same questions again just to hinder the proceedings, therefore, the application be dismissed.
4. Present election petition is filed mainly on two grounds;
(i) that, at the time of filing of nomination form, respondent No. 1 / returned candidate did not belong to the scheduled caste category and, (ii) that, respondent No. 1 has suppressed material information with regard to the pendency of criminal case registered by Lokayukta police at crime No. 17/2017 while filing the nomination form.
5. Order 14 provides settlement of issues, which reads as under:-
"Order XIV - Settlement of Issues and Determination of Suit on Issues of Law or on Issues Agreed upon Rule 1: Framing of issues--
(1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other.Signature Not Verified (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 07-07-2023 10:31:23 AM 4
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Election Petition No. 08 of 2019 or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.
(3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue.
Rule 2: ...........
Rule 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.
x x x"
6. In this case, as provided under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, the issues were framed on 11.12.2019, according to the propositions of fact and law pleaded by the petitioner as well as denied by the respondents.
7. Earliar also IA. No. 1640/2022 under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by respondent No. 1 before this court for seeking a direction to the petitioner to delete the pleadings in respect to Scheduled Caste Certificate/status of respondent No. 1 specially in paragraphs Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 35 and 36 as well as ground NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 07-07-2023 10:31:23 AM 5 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Election Petition No. 08 of 2019 Nos. B, C, D, E, G. The said application was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 05.9.2022. While passing the said order this court held that "the pleadings in these paragraphs are in relation to the claim that the respondent No. 1 does not belong to scheduled caste and these paragraphs also contain the history of respondent No. 1 and the details of the caste certificates which were obtained by him on earlier occasion. So also, this Court by order dated 04.4.2022 has come to a conclusion that contesting an election on the basis of a false caste certificate would amount to undue influence as provided under Section 123 (2) of Representation of People Act and thus, in case it is found that the petitioner has contested the election by relying upon a false certificate then disqualification as provided under Section 8 (A) of Representation of People Act come into operation." The said order is still in existence. Therefore, there is no reason to allow this application filed for deletion of issues as the issues framed are necessary to adjudicate this election petition. It is worth mentioning here that the respondent no.-1 also filed I.A. No.1186/23 under Order 10 of CPC for staying the further Signature Not Verified proceeding of this petition in the light of the fact that Writ Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 07-07-2023 10:31:23 AM 6 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Election Petition No. 08 of 2019 Petition No. 4794 of 2020, which was allowed by order dated 12.12.2020, quashing the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Caste Scrutiny Committee has been challenged by respondent No. 1 in Writ Appeal No. 1668 of 2022 which is still pending. The said I.A. No.1186/23 has already been dismissed by this court by order dated 31/03/ 23 and order passed by this court not been challenged by the respondent No.-1.
8. Learned counsel respondent No. 1 cited the case of Kalawati vs. Premnarayan Srivastava; 2014 Legal Eagle (MP) 1409 and in which it is held that while dealing with the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC the Court has to deal with the aspect whether the issue has any relevance with the relief claimed. In this case, the issues framed have relevance with the relief claimed, therefore, respondent No. 1 does not get any help from the above case law.
9. In view of the above, I.A. No. 2292 of 2023 for deleting issues is hereby dismissed.
10. On the objection raised by learned counsel for the election petitioner for exhibiting the document (copy of Writ Signature Not Verified Petition No. 4794 of 2020), the learned counsel for respondent Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 07-07-2023 10:31:23 AM 7 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Election Petition No. 08 of 2019 No. 1,argued that since photocopy of the original petition was supplied to the respondent no.-1, therefore, it comes within the purview of primary evidence and can be exhibited.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the photocopy of the petition can not be exhibited.
12. Since the document (copy of Writ Petition No. 4794 of 2020), is a photocopy and it does not come within the purview of primary evidence as per provision of Section 62 of Evidence Act, therefore, the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed and prayer to exhibit the document (copy of Writ Petition No. 4794 of 2020),) is hereby rejected.
13. Let the matter be listed from 10/07/23 to 12/7/23 at 12.30 pm for recording of evidence of Petitioner's witnesses.
(Sunita Yadav) JUDGE Signature Not Verified AKSby: SANJAY Signed NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 07-07-2023 10:31:23 AM