R.P.(C) Nos. 448-449 of 2014 in C.A. Nos. 5710-5711 of 2012 and R.P.(C) Nos. 450-451 of 2014 in C.A. Nos. 5710-5711 of 2012. Case: Arikala Narasa Reddy Vs Venkat Ram Reddy Reddygari and Anr.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | R.P.(C) Nos. 448-449 of 2014 in C.A. Nos. 5710-5711 of 2012 and R.P.(C) Nos. 450-451 of 2014 in C.A. Nos. 5710-5711 of 2012 |
| Judges | Dr. Balbir Singh Chauhan, Jasti Chelameswar and M. Yusuf Eqbal, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order 47, Rule 1 |
| Judgement Date | April 17, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
-
The above-mentioned Review Petitions have been filed by the contesting parties against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.2.2014 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5710-11 of 2012 by which this Court has decided the Election Petition by draw of lots after reaching the conclusion that both the candidates have secured equal votes. Before proceeding with the case, it may be pertinent to mention here that before pronouncement of the judgment, this Court had made it clear that in case the Review Petition is filed by either of the parties, it will be heard in open court. As both the parties have filed the Review Petitions, we have heard them together in open court and not as per the rules of the court by circulation and it is not a case where the Review Petition has to be decided directly in accordance with the requirement of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
-
The election to the 18-Nizamabad Local Authority Constituency of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council was held on 30.3.2009 and out of 706 total votes, 701 votes were cast. The counting of votes took place on 2.4.2009 and at the initial counting, both the candidates secured equal number of votes i.e. 336 votes and 29 votes were found invalid. An application for recounting of votes was filed before the Returning Officer and on recounting, Arikala Narasa Reddy, Appellant in the Civil Appeal, secured 336 votes and the Respondent No. 1 in the appeal, secured 335 votes and 3 votes were rejected as invalid and, thus, the Appellant before us was declared to be a successful candidate by margin of one vole. The defeated candidate had filed the Election Petition in the High Court and in response thereof, the Appellant also filed a Recrimination Petition. However, after considering all the votes, the High Court declared the Respondent No. 1 as a successful candidate and reversed the declaration of the result as made by the Returning Officer.
-
Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal challenging the said judgment and order before this Court and this Court came to the conclusion that the matter ought to have been considered only in light of the pleadings taken in the Election Petition and that the matter was to be restricted to only 4 votes i.e. Exs. X-1, X-2, X-3 & Ex. Y-13 and nothing further and in case the result is altered, then the Recrimination Petition should have been tried. Thus, this Court proceeded partially ignoring the judgment of the High...
To continue reading
Request your trial