TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court overturns dismissal, orders expedited trial on disclosed cause of action</h1> <h3>Kuldeep Singh Pathania Versus Bikram Singh Jaryal</h3> Kuldeep Singh Pathania Versus Bikram Singh Jaryal - 2017 AIR 593, 2017 (5) SCC 345, 2017 (1) JT 487, 2017 (1) SCALE 639 Issues involved:Dismissal of election petition for lack of material facts and cause of action under Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.Detailed Analysis:1. Dismissal of Election Petition: The appellant lost the election and filed a petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, seeking to declare the election void. The High Court dismissed the petition based on preliminary issues regarding material facts and cause of action. The High Court extensively analyzed alleged violations during polling and vote counting, concluding that the petition lacked material facts and did not disclose any cause of action. The court erroneously considered explanations from respondents, leading to a flawed decision on the petition's viability.2. Preliminary Issues and Legal Provisions: The judgment highlighted the relevance of Section 83(1)(a) of the Act, which mandates a concise statement of material facts in an election petition. The court discussed Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code, emphasizing that a plaint lacking a cause of action should be rejected. Additionally, the court referred to Order XIV Rule 2(2) for dealing with preliminary issues related to court jurisdiction and legal bars to the suit.3. Scope of Enquiry under Order VII Rule 11: The judgment clarified that an enquiry under Order VII Rule 11(a) should focus solely on the plaintiff's pleadings to determine the existence of a cause of action. Contrarily, under Order XIV Rule 2(2), the court can consider pleadings from both sides to ascertain jurisdiction and legal impediments to the suit. The court emphasized the limited scope of an enquiry under Order VII Rule 11(a) and the necessity to evaluate only the plaintiff's pleadings.4. Judicial Precedents and Legal Principles: The judgment referenced the case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, emphasizing that a plaint should not be rejected based on the defendant's allegations. The court reiterated that the determination of a cause of action relies on the plaintiff's averments, not evidence. Citing Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh, the judgment emphasized that the court should not assess the merits of the case prematurely, but rather focus on whether the petition discloses a cause of action.5. Decision and Remittal: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and remitting the election petition for expedited trial on merits. The court stressed that the petition had indeed disclosed a cause of action, warranting a full-fledged trial. The judgment refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits and directed the High Court to proceed promptly, preferably within four months, without imposing costs.In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment elucidated the procedural intricacies of dismissing an election petition for lack of material facts and cause of action, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal provisions and precedents in such matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
