CMPMO No. 2 of 2015. Case: Secretary State Election Commission and Ors. Vs Virender Kapil and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberCMPMO No. 2 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Nishi Goel, Advocate and For Respondents: Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate and Basant Thakur, Advocate
JudgesSureshwar Thakur, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rule 11
Judgement DateApril 10, 2017
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court


Sureshwar Thakur, J.

  1. Respondent No. 1 herein/plaintiff Virender Kapil instituted a suit against the defendants/petitioners herein, for monetary damages comprised in a sum of Rs. 15,00,500/- only arising from the purported statutory omissions besides breaches of official duty(ies) by defendant No. 3, in omissions/breaches whereof, other defendants vicariously recorded their participation vis-à-vis the aforesaid co-defendant, statutory omissions/breaches whereof purportedly arose from theirs illegally rejecting the nomination papers of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein on account of his father holding government land as an encroacher, whereas, this Court while deciding CWP No. 8497 of 2010 pronouncing therein qua the order of the Returning Officer concerned, whereupon, he rejected the nomination papers of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, on the score qua his father unauthorisedly encroaching upon government land, conspicuously, when thereupon, the plaintiff stood not rendered to fall within the ambit of the coinage "family" occurring in Section 122 (1) (c) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, thereupon, the apposite statutory ill consequence(s) not warranting their befallment upon him, warranting hence theirs standing quashed. In sequel thereto, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein was permitted to contest election(s) to the post of Vice President (Up Pradhan), of G.P. Tatapani. However, he did not succeed in the elections. Subsequent, to the pronouncement recorded by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 8497 of 2010, pronouncement whereof attained finality, given the Hon'ble Apex Court on standing seized with a SLP, as arose therefrom, dismissing the apposite SLP, whereafter, the apposite civil suit stood instituted before the learned trial Court.

  2. In the suit, instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein against the defendants, he claimed pecuniary damages from them, arising from theirs committing statutory omission(s) besides breaches, comprised in the Returning Officer concerned while holding vicarious consensus ad idem with other co-defendants, his illegally rejecting the nomination papers of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein, whereunder he aspired to contest elections to the post of Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Tatapani. Subsequent to the institution of the suit aforesaid against the co-defendants, the latter through an application constituted before the learned trial Court under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT