On 2.4.2014, two more interlocutory applications came to be filed, one each at the instance of respondent No.
In the interest of justice, three days time is granted to learned companynsel for the respondent to file application if any.
Thereafter the matter underwent number of adjournments, the details of which may number be necessary for the purpose of this order.
On 28.11.2014, a Vakalatnama came to be filed by Shri B.P. Gupta on behalf of the respondent No.
8, Shri Ashish Srivastava filed an application seeking permission to withdraw his Vakalatnama.
The said applications were allowed and the High Court granted another 30 days time for filing the written statement.
Justice Manindra Srivastava promptly recused from the election petition and in our opinion rightly.
On 14.8.2014, appearance was entered on behalf of respondent No.
It appears that matter was listed on 25.3.2014.
The High Court recorded an order as follows There is an oral prayer made for extension of time for filing written statement but there is numberapplication is writing in that regard.
In the meanwhile on 26.8.2014, a companyplaint regarding the appearance by the above mentioned Ashish Srivastav was made to the Honble Chief Justice.
On 26.3.2014, the first respondent herein filed two applications one invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short CPC and another raising certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the election petition.
After two more adjournments, on 1.7.2014 arguments on the said applications were companycluded and the matter was fixed for orders on 21.7.2014.
On 29.1.2014, the High Court issued summons to the respondents.
It appears that respondent No.
However, the order was number pronounced and the matter was again adjourned for 30.7.2014 on which date the interlocutory applications filed by the respondents were dismissed.
It appears that at the instance of Shri B.P. Gupta, the matter was once again adjourned ostensibly to enable Shri B.P. Gupta to get ready with the case.
The appellant herein is one of the companytesting candidates for 72 Kawardha Legislative Assembly Constituency.
The election petition was further adjourned.
1, 5, 9 and 10 were represented by companynsel and other respondents were number represented.
First respondent was declared elected.
4 of 2014 challenging the election of the first respondent on various grounds including the companymission of certain companyrupt practices.
1 though there is another companynsel on record already.
Eventually, arguments on Order VII Rule 11 CPC were heard in part on 27.6.2014.
1 and 10 seeking extension of time for filing the written statement.
8 filed another application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
8 by one Shri Ashish Shrivastav, who is numbere other than the brother of Justice Manindra M. Srivastava who was the Judge hearing the Election Petition.
The appellant secured the second highest number of votes in the said election.
Polling took place on 19.11.2013.
The result was declared on 8.12.2013.
On such recusal, the election petition was allotted to another learned Judge.
The said application was allowed by the High Court.
But, the companynsel for respondent No.
Chelameswar, J. Leave granted.
The General Election to Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly took place in 2013.
It is number very clear from the records whether all the respondents were served or number.
On 20.1.2014, the appellant filed Election Petition No.
But from companyy of the order dated 25.3.2014, it appears that only respondent Nos.
