Telangana High Court
E. Narahari Goud vs A. Saralamma on 4 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.466OF 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated
29.11.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-
Gadwal District in IA.No. 325 of 2022 in EOP. No. 01 of 2022.
2. Heard Sri CH. Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner and
M/s. Srilekha Pujari, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
3. The brief facts of the case relevant for adjudication of this
Revision Petition is that a gazette notification dated 07.01.2020
was issued by the Telangana State Election Commission for
election of Ward Members of Gadwal Town Municipality
scheduling the date of poll as 22.01.2020; that accordingly,
elections were held and results were declared on 25.01.2020; that
petitioner herein was the successful candidate from Ward No.18
and respondent No.1 was the unsuccessful candidate in the said
election. While so, respondent No.1 herein filed EOP.No.01 of
2020 under Section 233 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019,
(for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2019’) on the file of
the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar
2
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
District, to declare election of the revision petitioner as Ward
Member from 18 Ward of Gadwal Town Municipality as void and
to set aside the same; and further, to declare respondent No.1
herein as elected Ward Member from 18th Ward of Gadwal Town
Municipality.
4. In the said EOP, respondent No.1 herein primarily contended
that the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules and Orders
made under the Telangana Municipalities and Municipal
Corporations Rules, 2020 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as
‘the Rules’) and the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act,
1951, were not complied with, thereby materially affecting the
result of election insofar as revision petitioner is concerned and
therefore, the election of revision petitioner, being void and
inoperative, is liable to be set aside.
5. Revision petitioner entered appearance and filed an
application in I.A.No. 40 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d)
r/w Section 151 CPC for rejection of the EOP on the following
grounds:-
(i)That the III Additional District Judge, Gadwal is not a
constituted Election Tribunal and therefore, the said
3
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024Court has no legal jurisdiction to entertain, try and
dispose of the Election Petition on merits.
(ii) That the Election Petition does not disclose cause of
action to challenge legally and validly elected returned
candidate.
(iii)That the Election Petition is not in accordance with
the mandatory statutory provisions of the Act, 2019 and
the Rules, 2020, since respondent No.1 herein failed to
deposit security amount before the Court while presenting
the Election Petition, which is in contravention of Rule
8(1)(ii) of the Rules 2020.
6.It was further averred that III Additional District Judge, Gadwal
is not Principal District Judge for Mahabubnagar District, in terms
of Section 2(4) of CPC, Section 10 of AP Civil Courts Act, 1972
and also under Section 3(17) of General Clauses Act, 1897,
therefore, the said Court cannot be construed as Election Tribunal
to entertain and dispose of the Election Petition on merits. It was
further averred that the State Government, on revenue side, has
reorganized the Districts, whereunder Mahabubnagar District was
divided into five Districts, consequence of which Jogulamba-
4
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
Gadwal District was formed, however, on judicial side, no such
reorganization of Districts in Telangana was done by the High
Court of Telangana and as such, III Additional District Judge,
Gadwal cannot be treated as the Principal District Judge for
Jogulamba-Gadwal District to entertain, try and dispose of the
Election Petition.
7. Respondent No.1 herein filed counter resisting the said
application and contended that as per Rule 4(b) of the Rules, 2020,
when more than one District Judge is having territorial jurisdiction,
then Principal District Judge will act as ‘Election Tribunal’ as per
the intent of State legislature. It was further stated that the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Gadwal is functioning as
independent judiciary having proper territorial jurisdiction over
Jogulamba-Gadwal District and the said Court is not under the
control of Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar District.
8. Insofar as payment of security amount is concerned, it was
averred that he had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- in the Section of
the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District
and the same was accepted and in fact, the Section of the said
Court never took such an objection.
5
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
9.He further stated that if the pleadings in the Election Petition are
read in whole, cause of action for filing Election Petition is made
out.
10.By stating thus, respondent No.1 herein contended that the said
application filed by revision petitioner is frivolous and also abuse
of process of law and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. The III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar
District, in the light of the judgment dated 30.11.2021 of this Court
in CRP.No. 466 of 2024, vide impugned order dated 30.11.2021
has held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition
and therefore, restrained itself from adjudicating the other grounds
raised by respondent No.1 herein and ultimately, partly allowed the
application and returned the Election Petition under Order VII Rule
10 CPC for presenting the same before proper forum.
12. Consequent upon return of the Election Petition, respondent
No.1 herein presented the same before the Election Tribunal-cum-
Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, and the same
was re-numbered as EOP.No. 01 of 2022. During the pendency of
the said EOP, the revision petitioner again filed an application in
IA.No.325 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) CPC to
6
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
reject the EOP on the ground that respondent No.1 herein has not
deposited the security amount as required under Section 8(1)(ii) of
Act, 2019 and Rules, 2020, and secondly, the EOP does not
disclose the cause of action. They reiterated the other contentions
raised in the Election Petition filed before the Hon’ble III
Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District.
13. Respondent No.1 herein filed counter resisting the said
application and contended that the allegations made in the
application are not even pleaded in the counter filed in the Election
Petition; that the said application is filed after commencement of
trial with mala fide intention to protract the Election Petition and
the same is frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.
14. The Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District while
dismissing the said application, vide impugned order dated
29.11.2023, observed that revision petitioner has not pressed for
disposal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC
when the same was filed before the III Additional District Judge at
Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District and has came with the present
application by harping upon the point of limitation which is mixed
7
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
question of fact and law and therefore, at the threshold the Election
Petition cannot be thrown out on the said ground alone.
15. The Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District has
further observed that the cause of action includes bundle of facts
and as such, the averments made in the plaint alone has to be
considered while considering the application for rejection of plaint.
It further observed that suppression of material facts at the time of
filing of nomination is said to be cause of action for questioning the
election of the revision petitioner.
16. Aggrieved by the said order of the Principal District Judge,
Jogulamba-Gadwal District, the present Revision Petition is filed.
17. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
contended that pursuant to the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by
the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar
District, returning the Election Petition, the same was re-presented
before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District,
who was having jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the
Election Petition, therefore, it is obvious that respondent No.1
herein have initially approached wrong forum. He further
contended that there was no cause of action for filing Election
8
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
Petition for want of compliance of mandatory provisions under the
Act, 2019 and the Rules, 2020 and that the Election Petition is filed
beyond the period of limitation. Learned senior counsel specifically
contended that the time spent before a wrong forum cannot be
condoned in Election Petition by invoking Section 14 of the
Limitation Act and all these aspects were not considered by the
Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in the
impugned order andhad erroneously dismissed the application filed
seeking to reject the Election Petition. He further contended that
the Act, 2019, is a self-contained Act, wherein specific time has
been prescribed for filing Election Petition and the said Act being a
Special Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable
to the Election Petitions. He further contended that deposit of
security amount is mandatory as per Rule 8(1)(ii) of Rules, 2020
and since respondent No.1 herein failed to comply with the said
provision, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected on that
ground also.
18. To buttress his contentions as regards the period of
limitation, learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suman Devi Vs. Manisha Devi and
9
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
others 1, the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Maddipatla Jagan Mohan Rao Vs. Akula
Nagamalleswari and others 2 and the judgment of Karnataka High
Court in Shaheed Shahazadha Vs. K.Naayana Reddy and
another 3.
19. Learned counsel, in support of his contention that
requirement of deposit of security amount is mandatory in Election
Petition and non-compliance of the same would render the Election
Petition void, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Nandkishore Bhatta and others 4,
judgment of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in T.H.Abdul
Azeez Vs. K.G.Balasubramanian5 and judgment of the erstwhile
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Anajamma Vs. S.Pushpamma
and another 6.
20. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 herein
contended that Principal District Judge,Jogulamba-Gadwal District
has rightly dismissed the application on the grounds on which the
respondent No.1 herein sought for rejection of the Election Petition
1
AIR 2018 SC 3912
2
MANU/AP/0107/2008
3
AIR 2019 Karnataka 42
4
AIR 1973 SC 2464
5
MANU/KE/1458/2011
6
2001(1) ALD 77 (DB)
10
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
by observing that the same can be decided only after full-fledged
trial and therefore, the Election Petition cannot be rejected at the
threshold. She further contended that Election Petition was filed
within the period of limitation and further, the security amount was
deposited with the Superintendent of the Court of the III Additional
District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District along with the
Election Petition and it is also a fact that the Section of the said
Court has not raised any objection with regard to non-payment of
security amount at the time of numbering the Election Petition,
even otherwise, as observed by the Principal District Judge,
Jogulamba-Gadwal District in the impugned order, it is a curable
defect.
20.1. Learned counsel further contended that originally, Election
Petition was filed before the III Additional District Judge at
Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District which has got jurisdiction to
entertain the Election Petition, more so, in view of reorganisation
of revenue Districts in Telangana State by the State Government,
hence, the contention of the revision petitioner that Election
Petition was filed before a wrong forum i.e., III Additional District
Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District is untenable. She finally
11
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
contended that the revision petitioner failed to point out any
illegality or irregularity in the well-reasoned impugned order of the
Principal District Judge,Jogulamba-Gadwal District and hence, this
Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
21. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the averments
made by both the parties and the arguments advanced by learned
counsel appearing for both the parties.Perused the entire material
available on record and also scrupulously gone through the various
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts,
which were relied upon by learned counsel appearing for both the
parties.
22. As regards the contention of learned senior counsel for the
revision petitioner that Election Petition was filed before wrong
forum, it is to be seen that as per Rule 4 of the Rules, 2020,
Election Tribunal shall be the ‘District Judge’ having territorial
jurisdiction over the municipal area, or if there are more than one
such District Judge, the Principal District Judge shall be the
Election Tribunal. The said Rule has to be read along with Section
233(3) of Act, 2019, as per which, ‘Principal District Judge’ is
12
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
designated as ‘Election Tribunal’ to try the Election Petitions and
the proceedings connected therewith.
23. In the instant case, at the relevant time of filing Election
Petition before the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal,
Mahabubnagar District, admittedly, Principal District Judge,
Mahabubnagar District existed. There was reorganisation of
Districts in Telangana by the State Government on revenue side on
11.10.2016, wherein a new District-Jogulamba-Gadwal District is
formed by division of Mahabubnagar District into five segments.
However, on judicial side, there was no such reorganisation of
Districts, as such, the Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar
District continued to be the Election Tribunal as postulated under
Rule 4(b) of the Rules, 2020.
24. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.61, Law (LA,
LA&J-Home-Courts-A2) Department, dated 01.06.2022,
whereunder 33 Judicial Districts in the State of Telangana co-
terminus with the Revenue Districts were established.
25. In view of the aforesaid GO and also in the teeth of the
aforesaid provisions, the contention of respondent No.1 herein that
the Court of III Additional District Judge at Gadwal,
13
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
Mahabubnagar District is an independent District Judge at
Mahabubnagar District and as such, it has got jurisdiction to try the
Election Petitions is incorrect and unsustainable. Thus, originally,
the Election Petition was obviously filed before a wrong forum and
subsequently, it was re-presented before the Principal District
Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, which is a constituted Election
Tribunal to try the Election Petitions and the proceedings
connected therewith.
26. In order to compute the time spent by respondent No.1
herein before a wrong forum, it is apt to note down the chronology
of dates in the present case as hereunder:-
(i) Elections were held on 22.01.2020
(ii) Results of elections declared on 25.01.2020
(iii) Election Petition No. 01 of 2020 was filed before III
Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar
District on 20.02.2020
(iv) Election Petition No. 01 of 2020 was returned by III
Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar
District vide order dated 30.11.2021
14
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
(v) Election Petition was re-presented before Principal
District Judge, Gadwal District on 10.11.2022 and re-
numbered as EOP.No. 01 of 2022
27. Thus, from 20.02.2020 to 10.11.2022, i.e., the date on which
the Election Petition was re-presented before the Principal District
Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, respondent No.1 herein spent a
period of 2 years 9 months by pursuing the Election Petition before
a wrong forum.
28. Now, it is to be determined as to whether the time spent in
wrong forum can be condoned in Election Petitions while
computing the period of limitation in filing the Election Petitions.
29. In Suman Devi‘s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, while adjudicating the issue as to limitation in filing of
Election Petition vis-à-vis the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, has held
that as per Section 176(1) thereof, the Election Petition must be
filed within 30 days from the date of declaration of results of
election and since the said Act is complete Code for presentation of
Election Petition, provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act would
clearly stand excluded and further, observed that the Election
15
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
Petition which fails to comply with the mandated statue is liable to
be dismissed.
30. In Shaheed Shahazadha‘s case (cited supra), the Karnataka
High Court, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Suman Devi‘s case (cited supra), held that since there is no
statutory right analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963,
there remains no right for the respondent to seek for condonation of
delay spent in wrong forum.
31. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court comes to
conclusion that the period spent by pursuing the Election Petitions
in wrong forum cannot be condoned.
32. Since the core issues as to the maintainability of the Election
Petition and the period spent in pursuing the Election Petition
before a wrong forum are held against respondent No.1, this Court
is not inclined to delve into the aspect of deposit of security amount
by respondent No.1 at the time of filing Election Petition.
33. In the light of the above totality of facts and circumstances
of the case and also in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and various other High Courts as referred supra,
this Court holds that the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-
16
LNA, J
CRP.No.466 of 2024
Gadwal District committed illegality and irregularity in dismissing
the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and therefore,
the same warrants interference by this Court.
34. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting
aside the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Principal District
Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in IA.No.325 of 2022 in
EOP.No. 01 of 2022 and consequently, the said I.A stands allowed.
35. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. No costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:04.04.2025
Dr