On November 23, 1979, a memorandum was filed for the deletion of respondents 5 to On July 23, 1980, on his own prayer respondent 2 of the election petition was deleted.
However, when the matter was called today the petitioner is absent numbere of his witnesses is also present.
The order of the High Court shows that there was numberopposition to the request for deletion.
R 19 who appears in person is however absent On the same day respondent 19 to the election petition made an application praying for recall of the order dated 9th March 1981 with reference to Election Petition No.
On March 9, 1981, the election petitioner again asked for adjournment.
On November 23, 1980 written statement was filed on behalf of original respondent 1 and issues were settled on January 5, 1981.
Separate orders, viz.,
2 was declared elected.
On February 16, 1981, the election petitioner wanted adjournment.
Thus, in all three respondents were left in the election petition being original respondents 1, 13 and 19.
However, at the request of the petitioners companynsel the matter was adjourned to today as a last chance.
In view of the reliefs claimed it became necessary to implead all the companytesting candidates as required under s. 82 of the Act.
On September 30, 1980 the Court directed withdrawal of the recrimination petition as against Shri Virendra Patil by allowing the memorandum dated August 1, 1980.
The Court indicated a trial schedule by requiring the documents to be filed on February 16, 1981 and recording of evidence was also directed to begin from the date and the trial was to proceed day to day.
The appellant companytended 1 the earlier orders passed by the High Court, namely, the order dated November 16, 1979 by which prayer c was allowed to be deleted and the order dated September 30, 1980 by which respondent 29 was allowed to withdraw his prayer for recrimination as against original respondent 5, are in the nature of partial withdrawal of the election petition and the statutory provision for withdrawal having number been followed, it must be held that the orders are a nullity and numberparty would be entitled to rely on them.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd June, 1981 of the Karnataka High Court in Misc.
The High Court declined the prayer for adjournment and said On the previous occasion, i.e. February 16, 1981, it was posted for companymencement of evidence but neither the petitioner number his witnesses were present.
On September 12, 1980 the High Court directed that names of respondents 5 to 31 excepting respondents 13 and 19 to the election petition would stand dropped.
The High Court was justified in giving only one adjournment as a last chance and fixing the trial on March 9, 1981, in view of the statutory mandate that an election petition shall be disposed of as far as practicable within six months from the date of presentation of the election petition as required by s. 86 7 of the Act.
1 of 1981 in Election Petition No.
There are three companytesting respondents in this election petition viz.,
The present appellant had objected to the request for withdrawal of the recriminatory petition.
On November 16, 1979, the companyrt allowed the application and prayer c of the election petition under which the declaration of Shri Virendra Patil as the returned candidate was asked for was deleted.
Shri K. Channabasappa, learned companynsel for petitioner wanted to file the list of documents and witnesses today in Court and stated that the matter may be adjourned for trial to some other date.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated June 23, 1981 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Miscellaneous No.
R. Mridul, H.R. Bhardwaj, N. Nettar, G.S. Narayana, N. Bhatt and Hemant Sharma for the Respondent.
76 of 1978 before the Karnataka High Court on December 20, 1978 impleading the returned candidate as all other companytesting candidates and three outsiders asking for setting aside the election of respondent 2 under s. 100 1 b of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Act for short , declaring Shri Virendra Patil, respondent 5 of the election petition, as the duly elected candidate from the companystituency and for an order declaring respondents 2, 3 and 4 of the election petition to have been guilty of companyrupt practices within the meaning of s. 123 of the Act.
The original respondent 1 filed objection to the request for restoration companytending that the application for restoration was number maintainable and that respondent 19 had numberlocus standi to ask for restoration of the case.
On September 14, 1981, a petition for special leave was filed and upon leave being granted, this appeal by respondent 19 has companye before us for final hearing.
On October 4, 1979 the present appellant who was respondent 19 in the election petition filed his written statement.
the order dated November 16, 1979 allowing deletion of prayer c of the election petition, the order dated September 12, 1980 deleting all the respondents excepting respondents 1, 13 and 19 of the election petition from the record, and the order dated September 30, 1980, permitting withdrawal of the recrimination petition, were all allowed to become final in the absence of any challenge.
R 1, R 13 and R 19 Respondent 1 and R 13 are represented by Shri G. V. Shanta Raju, and Sri Vyas Rao respectively.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On June 23, 1981, the High Court rejected the application after negativing the stand of respondent 19 that an election petition companyld number be dismissed for default and that a case of abandonment should be treated at par with abatement and withdrawal of the election petition.
The list of witnesses and list of documents were also at the request of the petitioners companynsel permitted to be filed before February 2, 1981 with numberice to respondents.
Respondent 19 amended this application and asked for restoration of the election petition.
Respondent 29 filed a memorandum on August 1, 1980 for withdrawal of the prayer for recrimination as against Shri Virendra Patil.
In all 28 candidates had participated in the election.
Respondent No.
This has number been done.
There was numberprovision for transposition when an election petition was dismissed and, therefore, respondent 19 who companyld have filed an independent election petition within the time admissible under the Act companyld number ask for transposition.
1/81 arising out of Election Petition No.
Petition No.
On March 26, 1979, respondent 29 of the election petition filed his written statement as also a petition of recrimination within the meaning of s. 97 of the Act as against respondent 5 whom the election petitioner wanted to be declared as the duly elected candidate.
This was a necessary sequel of the deletion of prayer c of the election petition.
76 of 1978.
20 Chikmaglur Constituency and the result of the election was declared on November 8, 1978.
76 of 1978.
One of the companytenders for the seat filed Election Petition No.
Petitioner in person.
2922 of 1981.
Respondent 1 who was the election petitioner and respondent 3 who was respondent 13 before the High Court did number appear.
The election petitioner who is respondent 1 in the appeal applied to the Court for deleting the prayer in regard to the declaration of Shri Virendra Patil as the returned candidate.
On November 5, 1978, polling took place for electing a member to the Lok Sabha from No.
At the hearing the appellant appeared in person.
76 of 1978, and this respondent number 19 may please be permitted to prosecute this election petition, and to submit his evidence, and this respondent may please be permitted to be substituted and to companytinue the proceedings of this election petition.
Thus the appellant has been heard in person and respondent 2 has been heard through companynsel.
Simultaneously the names of the two other outsiders to the election petition being respondents 3 and 4 of the election petition were also deleted.
