Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Sahina vs Returning Officer And Ors on 10 May, 2017 cites

Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007

In the instant case the second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the RC on 26-4-2017 at the stage when in fact final arguments on the election petition were concluded by the EP on 20-4-2017. On analogy of the Apex Court's reasoning in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar (supra) such inordinately delayed application in the court's discretion was to be dismissed and was so rightly by the trial court in the instant case. As an order on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a discretionary one and does not relate to the defendant's right, the contextual facts are very relevant. It is quite apparent that the RC had no concern with her being pursued in an allegedly frivolous and vexatious proceeding while invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He only sought to delay the adjudication of the election petition by a disguised method of adjournment, i.e. moving as if with impunity, a misdirected second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 139 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005

Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. V.K. Sharma for the EP submitted that the resort to Order 7 Rule 4 11(d) CPC, a second time over, in the underlying election petition by the RC was impermissible, palpably vexatious and a blatant attempt to delay the disposal of the election petition with the potential of RC's election being set aside. It was submitted that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was earlier filed by the RC on other varied grounds such as the copy of the notice sent to District Election Officer not having been annexed thereto and documents filed in support of the election petition neither being signed nor verified by the EP. That application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed on 12-2-2016. If at all the ground of election petition not having been presented in terms of Rule 81 of the Rules of 1994 was sought to be agitated by the RC, it ought to have been so when the earlier application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC was first filed. A second application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC was not maintainable. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma submitted that even otherwise, on merits the RC has no case, inasmuch as the trial court in its impugned order dated 1-5-2017 has held as a fact that the EP herself was present at the time of presentation of election petition on 4-2-2015 and this was not open to question in view of the fact that the order-sheet of the said date records the signatures of the EP. It was further submitted that albeit the plain language of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not exclude any stage at which such an application can be filed, yet the factum of the delayed filing of the application, more so after the final arguments on behalf of the EP is indicative of the complete 5 misuse of the process of the court and should be and was a factor with the trial court and also be with this court in the exercise of the court's discretion under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma submitted that besides, the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can only be exercised on the ground of perversity, patent illegality and error of jurisdiction and not against discretionary orders. He emphatically submitted that this court should come down hard on frivolous and vexatious petition filed against interlocutory orders of the trial, without just cause and only to make an attempt at delaying the final adjudication of underlying suits. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma further submitted that this court vide order dated 22-2-2016 in SBCWP No.1979/2016, relied on the judgment in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku [(2005)4 SCC 480] wherein the Apex Court considering the delaying tactics adopted by the defendants in election disputes observed, if not directed that the judge trying election petitions must handle the prayer for adjournments therein with firmness. He submitted that this court had in fact directed the trial court to decide the underlying election petition in issue within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The RC is trying, by resorting to the second absurd application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only to delay the disposal of the election petition to his advantage of continuing as a Sarpanch. Such an application in fact is contumacious as the directions of this court on 22-2-2016 in SBCWP No.1979/2016 6 albeit to the trial court was also binding on the RC and she cannot arrogate to herself the uncontrolled right to overreach the court's order directly or indirectly. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma prayed the petition be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 997 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Y.B. Patil And Ors vs Y.L. Patil on 23 August, 1976

The Apex Court in the case of Y.B. Patil Vs. Y.L. Patil [AIR 1977 SC 392] reiterated the well settled legal position that the principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, but also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. The RC not having invoked Rule 81 of the Rules of 1994 in her first application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was dismissed on 12-2-2016, (and which order has attained finality), she could not have filed the second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC purporting to invoke Rule 81 of the Rules of 1994. Such an application was barred by constructive res judicata.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 120 - H R Khanna - Full Document
1