MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: PROVISION OF CPC TO BE FOLLOWED IN TRAIL OF ELECTION PETITIONS U/S 122 OF MP PANCHAYAT RAJYA ADINIYAM

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case wherein the Gwalior Bench set aside the order passed by a Sub Divisional Officer, wherein the said proceedings under Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam, 1993 were not carried out in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The bench headed by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke in the case observed and has held that pursuant to Rule 11 of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, therefore, the trial with respect to an election petition has to be conducted as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court observed after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it is being appeared that the procedure as laid down under Rule 11 of Rules of 1995 has not been followed as no issues have been framed in the said and the parties have not been allowed to adduce their evidences.

The court vitiated the entire proceedings. Therefore, the procedure has been laid down under the provisions of the CPC for trying the suit is to be followed in cases where election petitions are tried under Section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam, 1993. In the present case, the election petition has been filed by the respondent before the SDO against the petitioner, who being the returnable candidate in local body elections. In the plea the main grievance of the petitioner was that the impugned order has been passed by the SDO without framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence.

The petitioner moved the court aggrieved with the same. It has been submitted by the petitioner before the court that as per the provisions under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995, in the matter the authority should have proceeded as per the provisions under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the respondent that the impugned order was passed only after affording equal opportunity to the parties. The court while considering conceded the case laws cited by the petitioner, the matter was being ought to be sent back to the SDO to hear the election petition afresh in accordance with the Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995.

The court concurred by the examining the submission of parties and documents on record with the arguments put forth by the petitioner. The court allowed the plea and the said matter was being sent back to the SDO. Further, it has been directed that the matter shall proceed from the stage of framing of issues on the basis of the pleadings in the plea which were put forth by the parties in the election plea as well as in the reply. The counsel, Mr. D.S. Raghuvanshi with Mr. Saurav Singh Tomar appearing for the petitioner. The counsel, Mr. R.D. Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sangam Jain represented the respondents.