Court emphasizes caution in rejecting plaints under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, allows opportunity to correct affidavit non-compliance.
In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court, presided over by Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, dismissed a writ petition by Smt. Santosh Kumari, challenging the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the 1st Additional District Judge, Haridwar. The case centered on an election petition filed by respondent Smt. Rishu Saini, challenging Kumari's election as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhogpur, on the grounds that the accompanying affidavit did not comply with Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.
Kumari sought the rejection of the election petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing the affidavit's non-compliance warranted dismissal. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's decisions, citing Supreme Court precedents that categorize such affidavit defects as curable. The court stressed that an opportunity must be provided to rectify procedural deficiencies, in line with the Supreme Court's guidance in the case of Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yamkham Erabot Singh.
The judgment underscored the principle that rejection of a plaint is a drastic measure, to be used sparingly and with caution, as it terminates a suit at its inception without a full trial. The court reiterated that a plaint should be read as a whole, with its averments presumed true, and defects in procedural compliance, like an improper affidavit, should not lead to automatic rejection without giving the plaintiff a chance to amend.
The court's decision allows the election petition proceedings to continue, emphasizing that procedural lapses in affidavit filing can be corrected, thus upholding the principles of substantial compliance over strict adherence to form.
Bottom line:-
Under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, the rejection of a plaint is a drastic measure and must be exercised with caution. A defect in the affidavit accompanying an election petition under Rule 94A of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 is curable, and an opportunity to rectify the defect can be granted.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7, Rule 11; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 - Rule 94A; Representation of The People Act, 1951 - Section 83(1)(c).
Smt. Santosh Kumari v. Smt. Rishu Saini, (Uttarakhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2928148
