(An Application Under Sections 8 vs Bhakta Charan Das ... Opposite Party on 11 March, 2025

[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

(An Application Under Sections 8 vs Bhakta Charan Das ... Opposite Party on 11 March, 2025

ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 1 of 27 Sashikanta Mishra,J. This application has been filed by the sole Respondent of the above Election Petition under Order VI Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VII Rule 14 of the C.P.C. and Sections 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the rules framed there under.

2. The Election Petition has been filed with two fold prayer;

(1) To declare the election of sole Respondent-Manorama Mohanty from 81 Narla Assembly Constituency as void and to set aside the same, and (2) To declare that the affidavit filed by the sole Respondent-Manorama Mohanty in Form-26 does not disclose complete, correct and true information regarding her educational qualification as mentioned under Col.11 of the said affidavit.

3. Notice of the Election Petition being served upon the sole Respondent, she has entered appearance and filed her written statement. Additionally, she has filed the instant application to which the Election Petitioner has filed his objection.

ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 2 of 27

4. The present application has been filed with prayer to dismiss the Election Petition in limine under Section 86 of the Act on the following grounds;

(i) The copy of election petition served on the Petitioner/Respondent though official mail of this Hon'ble Court is not the exact and true copy of the original Election Petition filed in Court.

(ii) The Election Petition has not been signed and verified by the election petitioner as required u/s 83(1)(c) of the Act read with Order VI Rule 15 C.P.C. The affidavit appended to the election petition has not been signed and sworn either before the Notary Public or before the Oath Commissioner, as required under the law.

(iii) There is complete lack of oath/affirmation of the Election Petitioner as required under Sec. 83(1)(c) of the R.P. Act, 1951 read with Order VI Rule 15 C.P.C and Chapter VI Rule 16 of High Court of Orissa Rules, 1948 for verification of the pleadings. Thus, the Election Petition does not confirm to the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Sec. 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951 and is to be dismissed u/s 86 of the Act in limine.

(iv) The election petition has not been signed and verified by the election petitioner in the manner laid down in the C.P.C. for the verification of pleadings. The election petition has not been presented along with the Affidavit as required under Sec. 83(1)(c) of ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 3 of 27 the Act read with Order-VI Rule-15 of the C.P.C. and Chapter VI Rule 16 of High Court of Orissa Rules, 1948 and as such, the election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

(v) The Affidavit appended to the election petition served on the Respondent is without oath and affirmation. The election petition having been filed without the affidavit as required under law is no Petition under the eye of law, and as such the same is liable to be dismissed under section 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951.

(vi) On a plain reading of the election petition it appears that the election petitioner sues upon several documents and/or relies upon several documents purported to be in his possession or power in support of his claim /allegation in the election petition. The election petitioner has neither produced such documents in court, when the election petition was presented nor has delivered copies of such documents to the Respondent, therefore the election petition is incomplete and the same is liable to be dismissed at the threshold on this score alone.

(vii) The documents referred to in the pleadings of the Election Petition on the basis of which averments have been made in the Election Petition have not been annexed along with the election petition nor copies of such documents have been provided to the Respondent, nor contents of such documents have been reproduced in the election ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 4 of 27 petition so that the Respondent shall not be prejudiced to set up his defence. Therefore, the election petition is incomplete and is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold under Sec. 86 for non-compliance of Sec. 81 and Sec. 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951.

(viii) The election petitioner has absolutely no cause of action to file the above election petition. The election petition has been filed purely on false, frivolous and imaginary grounds and on bald allegations without any supporting materials and documents. Hence, the same are liable to be dismissed in limine.

(ix) The election petition is liable to be dismissed as none of the ingredients of Sections 100, 101 and 123 of the R.P. Act, 1951 have been satisfied in the present case.

In addition, objections have been raised in respect of each of the paragraphs of the Election Petition, the particulars of which would be stated in detail hereinafter.

5. Heard Mr. G.K.Agarwal, learned Senior counsel with S. Srivastava for the sole Respondent/Petitioner in the I.A. and Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, learned Senior ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 5 of 27 counsel with Mr. T.K.Biswal, learned counsel, for the Election Petitioner/Opp.Party in the I.A.

6. Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel, would argue that the copy of the Election Petition served on the sole respondent through official mail of this Court is not the exact true copy of the original Election Petition filed in the Court.

In response, Mr.B.Mishra, learned Senior counsel, would submit that the Respondent intentionally avoided to receive notice which prompted this Court to direct the Registry to serve notice on the Respondent by e-mail and through Court process. The copy of the Election Petition as filed before this Court was sent by e-mail and therefore, the allegation that it is not the exact true copy is baseless.

7. It is settled law that the purpose of serving a true copy of the Election Petition and affidavit is to enable the respondent to understand the charges and prepare an effective defence. In the case of ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 6 of 27 T.M.Jacob v. C. Poulose and others;1, the Supreme Court held as follows;

"35. The object of serving a "true copy"

of an election petition and the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice on the respondent in the election petition is to enable the respondent to understand the charge against him so that he can effectively meet the same in the written statement and prepare his defence. The requirement is, thus, of substance and not of form.

36. The expression "copy" in Section 81(3) of the Act, in our opinion, means a copy which is substantially so and which does not contain any material or substantial variation of a vital nature as could possibly mislead a reasonable person to understand and meet the charges/allegations made against him in the election petition. Indeed a copy which differs in material particulars from the original cannot be treated as a true copy of the original within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act and the vital defect cannot be permitted to be cured after the expiry of the period of limitation."

8. Coming to the case at hand, this Court finds that the Respondent has not been able to demonstrate as to how the copy of the Election Petition served upon 1 (1999) 4 SCC 274 ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 7 of 27 her was different from the one filed in the Court or that she was not in a position to understand the averments made therein or was misled in any manner. The objection raised in this regard is therefore, untenable.

9. Mr.Agarwal, learned Senior counsel, next argued that the Election Petition has not been signed and verified by the Election Petitioner as required under Section 83(1)(c) of the Act read with Order VI Rule 15 of C.P.C. The affidavit appended to the Election Petition has not been signed and sworn before the Oath Commissioner.

Mr. B.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the Election Petition has been signed and verified in consonance with the provisions of Order VI Rule 15. Further, the Election Petitioner has himself attested and signed on each page. He has also sworn affidavit before the Oath Commissioner of this Court.

10. This Court has perused the Election Petition and finds that each of the pages thereof have been attested ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 8 of 27 and signed by the Election Petitioner himself. The Election Petition is appended with verification followed by affidavit as prescribed. It cannot therefore, be held that the Election Petition was not properly verified or there was no affidavit. Even otherwise, it has been held that the defect in such respect, if any, is curable and that it is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. In this context, reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Thangjam Arunkumar vs. Yumkham Erabot Singh and others;2. Moreover, what exactly is the defect has not been specified save and except for pleading that the Election Petition was not verified in terms of Section 83(1)(c) of the Act and Order VI Rule 15 of C.P.C. The objection raised by the Respondent on that count is therefore not tenable.

11. Mr. Agarwal would then argue that the Election Petition also contains the list of documents relied 2 (2023) 11 S.C.R. 392 ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 9 of 27 upon, but the said documents have not been filed along with the Election Petition.

In reply, Mr. B. Mishra would submit that the Election Petitioner has relied upon Form 2(B) and Form-26 of the Respondent. Additionally, the Election Petitioner has relied upon two documents received under the R.T.I. Act. Since the documents are public in nature and have already been referred to, the same can always be filed at the time of trial.

12. Perusal of the Election Petition reveals that a list of documents relied upon has been appended thereto. The documents are; copy of Form-B of the Respondent, copy of Form 26 of the Respondent, copy of information received under R.T.I. Act dated 19.5.2022 from Panchayat Samiti Office, Narla, copy of the information No.103 dated 20.6.2024 received from Headmistress, Government Girls' High School, Bhawanipatna and any other document to be filed at the time of hearing. In so far as the documents at Sl. Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the averments relating ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 10 of 27 thereto have been made under Paragraph-7 (ii). In other words, the contents of the documents have been pleaded and relied upon in support of the contentions put forth by the Election Petitioner. While the contents or the information contained in the documents are integral to the Election Petition, the document itself may not be an integral part. To amplify, had the Election Petitioner not related the contents of the documents in question and merely referred to the document, in such case it would have formed integral part of the petition but in the instant case, as already stated, the contents of the document or the information received through it have been stated in detail. Therefore, mere non-production of the document by itself, according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be fatal to the election petition. In the case of F.A. Sapa and others vs. Singora and others;3, the Supreme Court held as follows;

"The next grievance of the appellants is that they were not served with a true copy of the election petition inasmuch as the annexures served therewith were not true copies of the original.

(1991)3 SCC 375 ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 11 of 27 Section 83(2) lays down that any schedule or annexure to the petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as a petition. The grievance under this head is not that there is no compliance with section 83(2) but that the annexure which was an integral part of the election petition was not a true copy of the original, inasmuch as certain pages found in the annexure produced with the petition were missing from the copies supplied to the returned candidates/appellants. It was strongly submitted that an annexure which is an integral part of the election petition is an important and vital document and failure to supply a true copy thereof clearly violates the mandatory requirement of section 81(3) and renders the petition liable to be dismissed by virtue of section 86(1) of the R.P. Act.

As held in Sahodrabai' case (supra) where details of averments too compendious for inclusion in the petition are included in the schedule or annexure, the schedule or annexure in that case must be treated as integrated with the election petition and must comply with the requirement of Section 83(2) and section 81(3) failing which the provision of section 86(1) would stand attracted. But this does not apply to a schedule or annexure which produces a document as evidence in support of the allegation in the election petition. Such a schedule or annexure cannot be described as integrated with the election petition and defect in verification thereof would not prove fatal. In Sasidharan's case (supra) the same principle has been reiterated. In that case the election petitioner referred to a video cassette showing progress of the constituency which also contained speeches of government servants. A copy of the document was not served on the opposite party along with the election petition. It was held that the said document formed part of the election petition and failure to supply a copy thereof along with the election petition was fatal. If a document does not form an integral part of the election petition but is merely referred to in the petition of filed in the proceedings as evidence of any fact, failure to supply a copy-thereof will not prove fatal. Therefore, the maintainability of an election petition, in the context of the point on hand will depend on whether the schedule or annexure to the petition constitutes an integral part of the election petition or not. If it constitutes an integral part it must satisfy the requirements of section 81(3) and failure in that behalf would be fatal. But if it does not constitute an integral part of the election petition, a copy thereof need not be served along with the petition to the opposite party. Much would, therefore, depend on whether the schedule or annexure was an integral part of the election petition or not; if the former, failure to serve it along with the petition to the returned candidate would be fatal but not so in the latter case. The appellants contend that it was an integral part of the election petition but the High Court did not go into this question; it solely relied on the Stamp Reporter's report. It then emphasised that no defect was noticed by the Stamp Reporter in the following words:

ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 12 of 27

"The stamp reporter, in the instant case, found the copies in order and made his endorsement accordingly. I do not find any reason not to rely upon the endorsement of the stamp reporter."

Therefore, the criticism that the High Court which was duty bound to apply its mind and decide the question judicially had abdicated in favour of the Stamp Reporter's decision extracted earlier. We are afraid this criticism is not wholly correct because the High Court has also observed that `no specific omission or deviation in the copy from the original was pointed out' nor was it shown that the respondents were misled on that account. We have also closely scrutinised the application made by the returned candidate in the High Court and except for a general allegation that the annexure served along with the petition was not a true copy, no specific allegation is found. However, in the special leave petition filed in this Court question No.(vi) states that certain pages were missing from the copy of the annexure served on the returned candidate. Then in paragraph 11 it is averred that pages 15 and 16 of Annexure II were missing. Since no such specific allegation was made in the application filed by the returned candidate, the High Court had no occasion to go into this allegation and to ascertain if the missing pages contained material forming an integral part of the election petition. We would not like to embark upon an inquiry in this behalf and would leave it to the appellants to agitate the question before the High Court. We would request the High Court to examine the contention on merits, if raised, and answer the same in accordance with law. For the above reasons therefore, this Court is unable to accept the contentions advanced by Mr. Agarwal that the documents relied upon not having been filed along with the Election Petition or served upon the Respondent cannot be treated as fatal to the petition. It is for the Election Petitioner to produce the documents at the time of trial to substantiate the contentions advanced relating thereto. ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 13 of 27

13. Having dealt with the preliminary grounds urged by the sole Respondent, this Court would now deal with the specific contentions raised by her in respect of the individual paragraphs of the Election Petition.

(i) It is stated that under paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Election Petition that the pleadings are in respect of the area and schedule of election, names of contesting candidates, their symbols, party affiliation etc. These do not disclose any cause of action. Mr.Agarwal would argue in this context that unless the pleadings disclose a cause of action, the Election Petition cannot be maintained.

Mr. B. Mishra, on the other hand, would submit that the said paragraphs of the Election Petition cannot be read in isolation and moreove,r the necessary introductory facts have only been pleaded in the said paragraphs.

After going through the averments made in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Election Petition, this Court finds that only the relevant information with regard to ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 14 of 27 the election, contesting candidates and their party affiliation etc. have been indicated. As submitted by learned Senior counsel Mr.B.Mishra, these are formal in nature and necessary to introduce the other grounds on which the Election Petition is based and therefore, cannot be read in isolation. The argument of Mr. Agarwal in this regard is therefore, untenable.

(ii) It is stated in paragraph-7 (i) and (ii) that the Election Petitioner has relied upon an affidavit filed in a previous Panchayat Election, which has no relevance to the election in question. Further, it is not stated how the declaration in Form 26 is false and the same has materially affected the result of the election. According to Mr. Agarwal, the Election Petitioner alleges that the age declared by the Respondent in the affidavit in Form 26 is false inasmuch as she declared to have completed Secondary Education in 2021, but the School records and information received under R.T.I. Act reveal that she repeatedly failed in H.S.C. Examinations from1988 to 1992. According to Mr. ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 15 of 27 Agarwal, it settled law that the School Admission Register is not conclusive proof of date of birth. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mayadhar Nayak vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Jajpur and others; 1982 SCC Online Ori-1. In the instant case, the Respondent completed her secondary education from Bihar Board of Open Schooling and Examination in 2020-21 and correctly stated her date of birth as 11.6.1978. The allegations made by the Election Petitioner are therefore, completely false and baseless.

Mr. B. Mishra, on the other hand, would argue that the very fact that the Respondent has, in the I.A. filed by her, denied the allegation relating to her age as made in the Election Petition, by itself proves that it is a triable issue, which requires adjudication. Therefore, according to Mr.Mishra, the pleadings cannot be struck out nor the case can be rejected at the threshold.

After considering the grounds raised in the I.A. and the contentions advanced, this Court is inclined to ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 16 of 27 accept the argument of Mr. Mishra that the Election Petitioner has made certain allegations in her Election Petition regarding false declaration of the date of birth of the respondent. Said allegation appears to be based upon the School Admission Register and other documents obtained under the R.T.I. Act. Having pleaded so, it is for the Election Petitioner to prove the same by adducing evidence. Moreover, applicability or otherwise of the judgment cited can only be considered after the evidence is laid before this Court in the context of the facts pleaded. It cannot therefore, be said that the pleadings in question do not disclose any cause of action or that the pleadings being unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious are liable to be struck out.

(iii) It is stated that the pleadings under paragraphs- 8(i) to 8(v) do not disclose any cause of action. They only outline the general facts relating to the election such as constituency, number of candidates, nomination process etc. According to the Respondent, ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 17 of 27 these pleadings do not disclose any action of action. Mr. Agarwal would argue that these pleadings do not disclose any material fact nor any cause of action for which the Election Petition must be held to be in non- compliance of Sections 81 and 83 of the Act. In this regard, Mr.Agarwal has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu and others vs. Debi Ghosal and others,4 and in the case of Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi;5.

Mr.B.Mishra, on the other hand, would argue that the pleadings under Paragraphs-8(i) to (v) of the Election Petition, being formal in nature cannot be read in isolation, but have to be read along with other paragraphs of the petition. It is not the requirement of law that each paragraph of the Election Petition must independently disclose a cause of action.

After going through the relevant sub-paragraphs of Paragraph-8 of the Election Petition and on consideration of rival contentions put forth, this Court is inclined to accept the argument of Mr.B.Bishra that 4 (1982) 1 SCC 691 5 1986 (supp) SCC 315 ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 18 of 27 each paragraph of the Election Petition does not necessarily have to disclose a cause of action independently. Rather, the Election Petition has to be read holistically. Moreover, the paragraphs referred to by the Respondent are formal in nature and are merely reproduction of the basic facts necessary to introduce the allegations made in the subsequent paragraphs and therefore, cannot be read in isolation.

(iv) It is stated that in Paragraph-9 of the Election Petition that the Election Petitioner has simply quoted the provision of Section 33-A of the Act which by itself does not give rise to any cause of action. Mr. Agarwal would argue in this context that the election of a returned candidate can be questioned only by pleading material facts and particulars as per Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act. As such, the pleadings under Paragraph-9 are unnecessary, baseless and vague.

Mr. B. Mishra, on the other hand, would argue that the Election Petitioner has referred to the relevant statutory provision in order to justify the other ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 19 of 27 pleadings containing specific allegations and therefore, cannot be treated as unnecessary.

As already stated, it not necessary nor the requirement of law that each paragraph of the Election Petition must necessarily reveal a cause of action independently. Reading of the Paragraph-9 reveals that the Petitioner has extracted the provision under Section 33-A of the Act and has subsequently tried to plead as to how the said provision was violated by the returned candidate. Therefore, the pleading cannot be treated as unnecessary so as to be struck out.

(v) In paragraph-10 of the Election Petition, it has been alleged that the Respondent in her affidavit in Form 26 has given a false declaration about her educational qualification deliberately. According to the Respondent, the Election Petitioner has not pleaded as to how the Respondent deliberately did so, what are the false declarations and the source of his information. In this context, Mr. Agarwal would argue that unless material facts and particulars are pleaded, ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 20 of 27 such bald allegations cannot be the basis for making a fishing and roving inquiry by the Court.

Mr. B.Mishra, on the other hand, would argue that the very fact that the Respondent states that the allegations are false, implies that he denies the same. This, in turn, implies that the issues raised are triable and therefore, the pleadings definitely reveal a cause of action.

Reference to Paragraph-10 reveals that according to the Petitioner, the Respondent in her affidavit dated 23.4.2024, submitted in Form 26, deliberately provided false declaration regarding her educational qualification making her nomination liable for rejection. It is true that further particulars of the alleged false declaration in Form 26 have not been given but, as stated earlier, the Election Petition has to be read as a whole and no paragraph can be read in isolation. If such exercise is undertaken, it will reveal that the election of Respondent has been questioned mainly on the ground ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 21 of 27 that she had falsely declared her educational qualification in the affidavit in Form 26. In fact, the details of the alleged false declaration have been highlighted under Pararaph-7(ii). The entire Election Petition is silent as regards any other allegations. Therefore, the allegations made under Paragraph-10 has to be read in the context of the only allegation made by the Election Petitioner i.e. regarding the so called false declaration regarding educational qualification made by the Respondent in the affidavit in Form 26. The contentions advanced on behalf of the respondent cannot therefore, be accepted.

(vi) With regard to Paragraph-11 of the Election Petition, it is stated that the nomination of the Respondent has been questioned with reference to judgment of the Supreme Court but without specifying which judgment. According to Mr. Agarwal, unless there are clear and concise pleadings, the Court cannot indulge in any fishing or roving inquiry, which would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 22 of 27

Mr.B.Mishra, on the other hand, would argue that the Election Petitioner has merely stated that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court the nomination for declaration regarding educational qualification by the Respondent is liable to be rejected. The relevant case laws shall be cited at the time of trial.

It is trite law that only facts and not law are required to be pleaded. Paragraph-11 undoubtedly refers to "decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court" without giving the particulars of the said decision. But the same is of no consequence because the allegation is with regard to false declaration in the affidavit. It is for the Election Petitioner to substantiate his allegation by referring to the relevant case laws at the time of trial. Only because the relevant case law has not been cited, cannot be a ground to throw away the Election Petition at the threshold.

(vii) With regard to the averments in paragraph-12, it is stated that the material facts such as how the ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 23 of 27 nomination was invalid, how the returning Officer improperly accepted it or how the votes cast in favour of the Respondent are void, have not been pleaded. Further, how the result of the election was materially affected have also not been pleaded. Mr.Agarwal would argue that it is necessary for the Election Petitioner to plead all material facts and to show as to how the result of the election was affected because of improper acceptance of the nomination. Mr. Agarwal has relied upon the judgment of the Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithiviraj Singh vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh; 2017(2) SCC 487.

Mr.B.Mishra, on the other hand, would argue that the Election Petitioner has specifically referred to the facts/pleadings in the preceding paragraphs of the Election Petition and has tried to make a summary thereof in Paragraph-12 and nothing more.

(viii) Reading of Paragraph-12 of the Election Petition clearly reveals that the said paragraph starts with reference to the facts/pleadings in the preceding ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 24 of 27 paragraphs with regard to the submission of the alleged false affidavit by the Respondent giving false information regarding her educational qualification and her age. Thus, nothing new has been pleaded in the said paragraph. As argued by Mr. Mishra, the pleadings under Paragraph-12 are in the form of reiteration of the earlier paragraphs and as stated earlier, are to be read conjointly with the other paragraphs. The objection raised in this regard by the Respondent is therefore, not tenable.

(ix) As regards, Paragraphs-13 to 15 of the Election Petitioner, it stated that the same do not reveal any cause of action for which the same need to be struck out. Mr.Agarwal would submit that unless the averments disclose a valid cause of action, the Election Petition cannot be held to be maintainable in law.

Mr. B. Mishra, on the other hand, would argue that in the paragraphs in question, the Election Petitioner has referred to the jurisdiction of this Court, limitation period for filing of the Election Petition and ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 25 of 27 the security deposit made, which is necessary to constitute the Election Petition.

Reading of Paragraphs-13 to 15 of the Election Petition would reveal that the Election Petitioner has not made any specific allegations thereunder, but has asserted about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the fact that the Election Petition was filed within time and regarding deposit of Rs.2,000/- as security for cost as required under Section 117 of the Act. It is evident that these are facts concomitant to maintain an Election Petition as prescribed under the Act and an assertion that the same is a valid Election Petition. As such, it does not necessarily have to disclose any cause of action, which has already been disclosed in the previous paragraphs.

14. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts, the position of law and the contentions advanced by the parties, this Court is of the view that no ground is made out by the Respondent for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C.to strike ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 26 of 27 out any of the pleadings or under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the petition at the threshold or to dismiss the Election Petition under Section 83 of the Act. On the contrary, it is held that the Election Petition as laid does disclose a valid cause of action and involves triable issues for which it would not be proper to throw away the Election Petition at the threshold without taking it to trial.

15. In the result, the I.A. is held to be sans any merit and is therefore, dismissed.

.................................. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Ashok Kumar Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: authentication Location: High Court Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Mar-2025 12:11:16 ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 27 of 27

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court