Punjab and Haryana High Court: An application was filed by Devender Chattar Bhuj Attri, BJP MLA (‘Respondent 1’) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) read with Section 151 of the CPC and Sections 81, 83, and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘RP Act’) seeking dismissal of the amended election petition filed against him. A Single Judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara J. held that the said amendment did not increase or improve the scope of the petition, it rather restricted, reduced, and decreased the scope of prayers, thus, no prejudice was caused to the Respondent 1. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
Background
In the present case, Respondent 1 had filed an application for dismissal of the original election petition, however, this Court dismissed the same. After the dismissal, except for contesting Respondent 1, all other respondents proceeded ex-parte and no application was placed before the Court by any of them for setting aside of the ex-parte order.
The petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, for the amendment of the election petition; this Court allowed the same and the amended petition was taken on record. When the case was listed in August 2025, Respondent 1 informed the Court that he intended to file another application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. However, the petitioner stated that no written response was required, and they would oppose it through oral submissions.
Respondent 1 contended that the petitioner had made legal defect in in verification, attestation, supplying the copies and he had not personally filed the amended petition, which was the requirement of the RP Act, as it was filed through his counsel, which was contrary to the requirement. Per contra, the petitioner argued that the application was filed with the intent to delay the already delayed petition.
Analysis and Decision
Considering the submissions of Respondent 1 regarding the legal defects, the Court stated that it was to be analyzed by keeping in view the primary distinction in the present matter that by amendment, the prayers were reduced and confined to a limited prayer of improper rejection of 215 postal votes, which was already there in the unamended petition, and not even a single prayer was increased.
The Court opined that it was not the case of Respondent 1 that the copy of the amended petition supplied to him was different, or had alterations, or that there were additions or omissions in comparison to what was filed. The said copy contained signatures purported to be those of the petitioner, and it was supported by an affidavit that was duly notarized. Further, the Court stated that a perusal of the amended plaint showed that all the pages were duly signed.
Regarding the plea of improper verification, the Court specified that since the amendment did not increase the scope and Respondent 1 was previously supplied with copies, the objection did not sustain. Further, the Court emphasized that the objection pertaining to the non-attestation of the scanned copies by the petitioner under his signature was baseless because the copies were sent by e-mail as an additional mode of service and not as primary service. Thus, the digitally scanned copies, in the absence of allegations of any fewer pages or missing text became immaterial and no prejudice would be caused to the elected candidate even if the copy supplied to him was just an image of what was filed, and even if it did not contain the signatures of the petitioner.
Regarding the objection about not supplying one copy each for all respondents, the Court opined that since amended petition was filed, there was no need to file copies even for those respondents who had been proceeded ex-parte because they were not prejudiced due to non-receipt of the copies, as they had already discontinued to contest the petition. However, the Court emphasized that if the ex-parte order was set aside, then they could certainly be supplied with a copy of the original as well as the amended petition; and if the petitioner had then failed to do so, it would have been a valid ground for dismissal on their request.
Further, the objection regarding not personally filing the amended petition was unsustainable because no objection was raised at the time of the original election petition, and the amendment apparently did not cause any prejudice to the returned candidate. The petitioner’s earlier application and the amended petition had not been filed in violation of Section 81 of the RP Act as it does not require that the amended election petition, which restricted, reduced, or deleted the prayers, should also be presented personally by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court held that there was no legal requirement to file such type of amended petition personally.
Considering that there was no report or endorsement by Registry as to any irregularity regarding submission of amended election petition, the Court held that there was no violation of the RP Act and cumulatively, there was no defect in the amendment, and no violation in verification, attestation, supplying of copies, etc.
The Court opined that since the election petition disclosed proper cause of action, it could not be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC without a trial. However, there was a massive delay in the disposal of the election petition, because of which the petitioner thought it appropriate to confine his arguments only to the recounting of votes in terms of the amended petition, otherwise, the term of the election would be over, and the election petition would not be decided, and under such circumstances, he had sought amendment of the petition, and the prayer had already been allowed.
The Court emphasized that before the present application, Respondent 1 had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, etc., to the unamended petition and this Court had dismissed the same which remained unchallenged and had already attained finality. Thereafter, by amendment, the petitioner endeavored to restrict the prayers, and the amendment did not increase or improve the scope of the petition or its prayer, but restricted, reduced, and decreased the scope of prayers, thus, no prejudice was caused to Respondent 1. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition at hand.
[Brijendra Singh v. Devender Chattar Bhuj Attri, CM No. 36 E of 2025, decided on 18-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Abhimanyu Tiwari, Advocate and Siddhant Saroha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Satya Pal Jain, Sr. Advocate, Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, Ashwani Gaur, Sahil Garg, and Garima, Advocates
