{"id":262108,"date":"2001-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001"},"modified":"2017-03-02T18:05:07","modified_gmt":"2017-03-02T12:35:07","slug":"dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001<\/div>\n
Bench: S.V.Patil, R.C.Lahoti<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2720  of 2000\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nDR.  VIJAY LAXMI SADHO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAGDISH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t05\/01\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nS.V.Patil , R.C.Lahoti\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      This  appeal  by special leave is directed against  an
\norder  of  the\tHigh  Court  of\t Madhya\t Pradesh  dated\t 4th
\nFebruary,  2000 rejecting applications (I.A.  Nos.   2806\/99
\nand 5957\/99) filed by the appellant, the returned candidate,
\nseeking\t rejection  of\tan  electio petition  filed  by\t the
\nrespondent  challenging\t his  election\ton  various  grounds
\ncontained in those applications.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  elections to the Madhya\tPradesh\t Legislative
\nAssembly,  held in 1998, the appellant was declared  elected
\nfrom  Assembly\tConstituency  No.    290,  Maheshwar.\t The
\ndefeated  candidate  (Respondent herein) filed\tan  election
\npetition  challenging  his  election  n\t various  ground  of
\ncommission of corrupt practices, detailed in paragraphs 5 to
\n17 of the election petition.  The election petition had been
\ndrawn-up  in Hindi language.  The affidavit filed in support
\nof the election petition was also drawn up in Hindi anguage.
\nThe  main objection projected by the appellant in IA 2806\/99
\nto  the\t maintainability of the election petition  was\tthat
\nsince  the  affidavit  filed in support\t of  allegations  of
\ncorrupt\t practice was not drawn up in the manner  prescribed
\nby  Section  83(1) of t e Representation of the People\tAct<\/a>,
\n1951  (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) read with\tRule
\n94-A (hereinafter ‘the Rules’) in the prescribed form No.25,
\nthe defect was fatal and the election petition was liable to
\nbe   dismissed\t under\tSection\t 86(1)<\/a>\tof  t  e   Act\t for
\nnon-compliance with the provisions of Section 83<\/a> of the Act.
\nThe precise objection raised in I.A.  No.5957 of 1999 was to
\nthe effect that since election petition had been drawn-up in
\nHindi  language and not English language the same was liable
\nto be dismissed not having been drawn up in English language
\nas  required  by Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh High  Court
\nRules  (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court  Rules’).
\nBoth  applications were resisted by the election petitioner.
\nVide  order dated 4th February, 2000 a learned Single  Judge
\nof the High Court rejected b th applications.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.   G.L.   Sanghi, learned senior counsel  appearing
\nfor  the  appellant,  submitted\t  that\tthere  was  material
\ndifference  between the verification of the affidavit  filed
\nin  support of the election petition and the verification of
\nthe  election petition which rend red the election  petition
\ndefective  and thus liable to be dismissed.  Elaborating the
\nobjection, it was submitted that in the affidavit dated 11th
\nJanuary,  1999\tfiled  along with the election\tpetition  in
\nparagraph  KA, the election petitioner had verifie the facts
\nrelating  to  commission  of   corrupt\tpractice  stated  in
\nparagraphs  5 to 17 of the petition as true to his “personal
\nknowledge”  but in paragraph KHA of the same affidavit,\t the
\nelection  petitioner  had  verified  the  contents  of\tsame
\n“information  received by him”.\t It was submitted that\tthis
\nvariation  in  verifying the same facts, both  on  “personal
\nknowledge”    and   on\t   “information\t  received”,   being
\nself-contradictory,  rendered the affidavit as paragraphs  5
\nto  1  of  the\telection  petition as  being  based  on\t “no
\naffidavit”  in the eye of law and such a defective affidavit
\ncould  not  be taken into account for trying allegations  of
\ncorrupt practice in an election petition and, therefore, the
\nelection petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under
\nSection\t 8<\/a> of the Act.\tA perusal of the record reveals that
\nthe  election petitioner had later on, (possibly to meet the
\nobjection regarding defective affidavit) filed an additional
\naffidavit  in support of the allegations of corrupt practice
\nverifying the facts stated in parag aphs 5 to 17 as based on
\nhis   ‘personal\t knowledge’  and  not\ton  the\t  basis\t  of
\n‘information   received’  from\tany   other  source.\tThat
\naffidavit  appears to have been taken on record.   According
\nto  learned  counsel for the respondent on the\tother  hand,
\nnone  of  the  grounds raised by the appellant in  both\t the
\napplications could warrant dismissal of an election petition
\nunder  Section\t86<\/a>  (1) of the Act and the High\t Court\tthus
\nrightly\t dismi sed both the applications.  We have given our
\nthoughtful  consideration to the submissions made at the bar
\nand  for what follows we are unable to persuade ourselves to
\nagree  with  the  submissions  of learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant.   An election petition is liable to be  dismissed
\nin  limine  under  Section  86(1)<\/a> of the  Act  only  if\t the
\nelection petition does not comply with either the provisions
\nof  ‘Section  81<\/a> or Section 82<\/a> or Section 107<\/a> of  the  Act’.
\nThe  requirement  of  filing  an affi  avit  along  with  an
\nelection  petition,  in the prescribed form, in\t support  of
\nallegations  of\t corrupt  practice is contained\t in  Section
\n83(1)<\/a>  of the Act.  Thus an election petition is not  liable
\nto  be dismissed in limine under Section 86<\/a> of the Act,\t for
\nall  ged non-compliance with provisions of Section 83(1)<\/a>  of
\nthe Act or of its proviso.  What other consequences, if any,
\nmay  follow from the an allegedly ‘defective’ affidavit,  is
\nto  be\tjudged\tat  the trial of an  election  petition\t but
\nSection 86(1) of the Ac in terms cannot be attracted to such
\na  case.  In F.A.  Sapa and others vs.\tSingora and others<\/a> :
\n(1991)\t3  SCC\t375  a\tthree  Judge  Bench  of\t this  Court
\nspecifically  dealt with an issue concerning defects in\t the
\nverification  of an election petition as well as of  defects
\nin  the affidavit accompanying an el ction petition  wherein
\nallegations of corrupt practice are made.  After considering
\nthe provisions of Sections 83<\/a> and 86<\/a> of the Act, as also the
\nrequirements  of  Form No.25 prescribed by Rule 94-A of\t the
\nRules  and relevant provisions of the Code of Civil rocedure
\n, it was held :\n<\/p>\n
      “From  the text of the relevant provisions of the R.P.
\nAct,  Rule  94-A and Form 25 as well as Order 6 Rule 15\t and
\nOrder  19 Rule 3 of the Code and the resume of the case\t law
\ndiscussed  above  it  clearly emerges (i) a  defect  in\t the
\nverification,  if any, can be cured (ii) it is not essential
\nthat  the verification clause at the foot of the petition or
\nthe  affidavit\taccompanying  the same should  disclose\t the
\ngrounds or sources of information in regard to the averments
\nor  allegations which are based on information elieved to be
\ntrue  (iii) if the respondent desires better particulars  in
\nregard to such averments or allegations, he may call for the
\nsame  in which case the petitioner may be required to supply
\nthe  same and (iv) the defect in the affidavit in the prescr
\nbed Form 25 can be cured……..”\n<\/p>\n
      This judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this
\nCourt  in H.D.\tRevanna vs.  G.\t Puttaswamy Gowda and others<\/a>
\n:   (1999)  2 SCC 217.\tWe are in respectful agreement\twith
\nthe  view expressed in F.A.  Sapa’s case (supra) and in view
\nof  settled  law  the conclusion becomes  irresistible\tthat
\ndefect\tin verification of an affidavit is curable and\tdoes
\nnot  merit dismissal of an election petition n limine  under
\nSection\t 86<\/a> (1) of the Act.  The learned Single Judge of the
\nHigh Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in dismissing
\nI.A.  No.2806 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
      This  now takes us to consideration of the  objections
\nraised\tin  I.A.  No.5957 of 1999 seeking dismissal  of\t the
\nelection  petition on the ground that the election  petition
\nand the affidavit filed in support thereof had been drawn-up
\nin Hindi language and not in English language.\tThe argument
\nraised in the High Court and reiterated at the Bar before us
\nby  Mr.\t  Sanghi is that Rule 2(b) of the High\tCourt  Rules
\nprovides  that\tevery election petition shall be written  in
\nEnglish\t language  and since the election peti ion filed  by
\nthe  respondent\t was  written  in   Hindi  and\tnot  English
\nlanguage,   the\t same  was  liable   to\t be  dismissed\t for
\nnon-compliance with the said rule, in limine.\n<\/p>\n
      The  Madhya  Pradesh High Court has framed  Rules\t for
\ntrial  of  election  petitions\tunder  Article\t225<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tUnder Rule 9 thereof it is provided that the
\nRules  of the High Court shall apply, in so far as they\t are
\nnot inconsistent with the Repre sentation of the People Act<\/a>,
\n1951  or  the  rules, if any, made thereunder or  the  Civil
\nProcedure  Code\t in respect of all matters.  The  import  of
\nRule  9\t (supra) was considered in Prabhu Narayan vs.\tA.K.
\nSrivastava<\/a> :  (1975) 3 SCC 788 and this Court opined:\n<\/p>\n
      “Moreover,  it  appears to us that the  provisions  of
\nRule  9 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules regarding the
\nelection  petitions framed by the Madhya Pradesh High  Court
\nby  reference  to  Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh\t High  Court
\nRules  found  in Chapter III r garding affidavits cannot  be
\nmade  use of for this purpose.\tThe former set of rules\t are
\nmade  under Article 225<\/a> of the Constitution and cannot\tmake
\nany substantive law and the rules themselves on a perusal of
\nthem  would  show  that\t they relate merely  to\t pro  edural
\nmatters\t unlike rules made under Section 122 of the Code  of
\nCivil Procedure.” (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
      Rejecting\t  the\tpreliminary\tobjection   to\t the
\nmaintainability\t of the election petition for non-compliance
\nwith  the  High\t Court Rules, in Prabhu Narain’s  case\tthis
\nCourt held :\n<\/p>\n
      “Further\t more  according  to   Section\t86<\/a>  of\t the
\nRepresentation\tof  People  Act only petition which  do\t not
\ncomply\twith  the provision of Sections 81<\/a> or 82 or 117\t are
\nliable\tto  be\tdismissed.   We,  therefore,  over-rule\t the
\npreliminary objection.”\n<\/p>\n
      To  appreciate the effect of non-compliance with\tRule
\n2(b)  of  the High Court Rules, it is appropriate to  notice
\nsome  of  the relevant statutory provisions at\tthis  stage.
\nRule 2 of the High Court Rules provides:\n<\/p>\n
      “2.  Every Election petitions shall be –\n<\/p>\n
      (a) typewritten or printed fairly and legibly on white
\nfoolscap  size paper of reasonable quality, one side of\t the
\npaper  only being used, leaving a quarter margin on the left
\nand  at least 1\/2 inches open space on the top and bottom of
\neach  sheet;  (b) written in the English language, numbering
\nseparately  the\t paragraph thereof;  (c) couched  in  proper
\nlanguage,  and\tin conformity with section 81<\/a>, 82<\/a> and 83<\/a>  of
\nthe Representation of the People Act, 1951.”\n<\/p>\n
      Article 329(b)<\/a> lays down:\n<\/p>\n
      “329.   Bar  to  interference by courts  in  electoral
\nmatters –\n<\/p>\n
      (a) …  …  …\n<\/p>\n
      (b)  no  election to either House of Parliament or  to
\nthe  House  or\teither House of the Legislature of  a  State
\nshall  be called in question except by an election  petition
\npresented  to  such authority and in such manner as  may  be
\nprovided  for  by or under any l w made by  the\t appropriate
\nLegislature.”\n<\/p>\n
      Article 348 (1)<\/a> provides :\n<\/p>\n
      “348.  Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in
\nthe   High   Courts  and  for\tActs,\tBills,\t etc.\t (1)
\nNotwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this
\nPart, until Parliament by law otherwise provides-\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every
\nHigh Court …………………………\n<\/p>\n
      shall be in the English language.”\n<\/p>\n
      Article 348(2)<\/a> provides as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Notwithstanding\tanything in sub-clause (a) of clause\n<\/p>\n
(l),  the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent
\nof  the President, authorise the use of the Hindi  language,
\nor  any other language used for any official purposes of the
\nState, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal
\nseat in that State:\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tthat  nothing in this clause shall apply  to
\nany  judgment,\tdecree or order passed or made by such\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
      Rules  framed  by the High Court relating to trial  of
\nelection  petitions are only procedural in nature and do not
\nconstitute  “substantive law”.\tThose Rules have to be\tread
\nalongwith  other  statutory  provisions\t to  appreciate\t the
\nconsequences  of non-complia nce with the High Court  Rules.
\nArticle\t 329(b)<\/a> mandates that no election to either House of
\nParliament  or to either House of the State Legislature\t can
\nbe  called  in question except through an election  petition
\npresented  to  such  authority\tand in such  mann  r  as  is
\nprovided  for  by or under any law made by the\tlegislature.
\nSection\t 81<\/a>  of\t the Act deals with the presentation  of  an
\nelection petition while Section 82<\/a> deals with parties to the
\nelection  petition  and Section 83<\/a> with contents of  such  a
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
      Article  348<\/a>  expressly deals with the language to  be
\nused  in the Supreme Court and the High Courts and lays down
\nin  Article 348 (1) (a)<\/a> that all proceedings in the  Supreme
\nCourt and every High Court shall be in the English language.
\nArticle 348(2) (supra<\/a> ), however, carves out an exception to
\nthe above general rule.\n<\/p>\n
      The  non-abstante\t clause\t with which  Article  348(2)<\/a>
\nopens, unmistakably shows that the Governor of a State, with
\nthe  previous consent of the President may authorize the use
\nof  Hindi  or any other language in proceedings in the\tHigh
\nCourt  having  its princip al seat in that State,  save\t and
\nexcept\tthat  “judgment, decree or order passed or  made  by
\nsuch  High  Court”,  shall  be in the  English\tlanguage  as
\nrequired  by  Article 348(1).<\/a>  By a Notification dated\t18th
\nSeptember, 1971 issued by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, in
\nexercise  of  the powers conferred by clause (2) of  Article
\n348<\/a>  of the Constitution of India, with the previous consent
\nof  the\t President  of\tIndia, authorised the  use  f  Hindi
\nlanguage in all proceedings of the High Court other than for
\ndrawing\t up decrees, orders and judgments of the High Court,
\nsubject to certain conditions.\tUnder the said Notification,
\nappeals,  petitions  etc.  could thus, be presented  in\t the
\nHigh Cou t of Madhya Pradesh drawn-up in the Hindi language,
\nnotwithstanding\t the  provisions of High Court Rules.\tRule
\n2(b)  of  the High Court Rules cannot be so construed as  to
\nrender\tthe  constitutional provisions contained in  Article
\n348(2)<\/a>\tas ‘meaningless’.  ule 2(b) of the High Court  Rules
\nhas  to\t be read along with the Notification issued  by\t the
\nGovernor on 18th September, 1971 under Article 348(2)<\/a> of the
\nConstitution  and  when\t so construed, it  follows  that  an
\nelection  petition  may\t be filed in Hindi language  and  it
\ncannot be dismissed at the threshold under Section 86<\/a> of the
\nAct  for  alleged non-compliance with Rule 2(b) of the\tHigh
\nCourt  Rules.\tThe  question whether an  election  petition
\ndrawn  up  in Hindi language is maintainable or not came  up
\nfor  consideration before a learned Single Judge of the High
\nCourt  of Madhya Pradesh in Election Petition No.  9 of 1980
\ntitled\tDevilal\t s\/o.\tShriram Khada  vs.   Kinkar  Narmada
\nPrasad\tand  others.  While rejecting the challenge  to\t the
\nmaintainability\t of the election petition drawn up in  Hindi
\nlanguage, it was said :-\n<\/p>\n
      “Now  it is true that Rule 2(b) of the aforesaid Rules
\ndoes  provide that every election petition shall be  written
\nin  the\t English  language.   But  in  the  absence  of\t any
\nprovision  in  the  Act or the Rules  made  thereunder,\t non
\ncompliance with Rule 2(b) of the a oresaid Rules cannot be a
\nground for dismissal of the petition under Section 86<\/a> of the
\nAct.”\n<\/p>\n
      A\t contrary  view was, however, expressed\t by  another
\nSingle Judge of that High Court in Jai Bhansingh Pawaiya vs.
\nShri  Madhavrao\t Scindia<\/a>.  In this case it was held that  an
\nelection petition filed in Hindi language being violative of
\nRule  2(b)  of\tthe Ru es, relating to\tfiling\tof  election
\npetitions,  was\t not  maintainable  and\t was  liable  to  be
\ndismissed  under Section 86<\/a> of the Act.\t The learned  Single
\nJudge opined :\n<\/p>\n
      “The  Special  Rules framed by the High Court, in\t the
\ncircumstances,\ttaking into account the implications arising
\nunder  Article 329(b)<\/a> of the Constitution of India read with
\nSection\t 80<\/a>  of the Representation of the People Act,  1951,
\nrelating  to  election pet tions prescribing the manner\t for
\npresentation   of  the\telection   petition   by   necessary
\nimplication  stand  clothed with such a statutory  character
\nwhich  could not be deemed to have been affected by an order
\nrelating to authorization contemplated under Article 348 (2)<\/a>
\nof  the\t Constitution of India so as to take away  statutory
\nrigour of the Rules prescribing a requirement of an election
\npetition  to  be  written  in  English\tlanguage,  numbering
\nseparately  the paragraphs thereof as provided in rule 2  of
\nthe aforesaid ules relating to election petitions.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  interpretation placed on rule 2 of the High Court
\nRules,\tgiving it almost primacy over Article 348(2)<\/a> of\t the
\nConstitution,  in  Jai\tBhansingh’s  case  to  our  mind  is
\nfallacious.   The learned single Judge appears to have\tlost
\nsight of the position that R les framed by the High Court in
\nexercise  of powers under Article 225<\/a> of the Constitution of
\nIndia  are  only  rules of procedure and do  not  constitute
\nsubstantive  law and those rules cannot effect the import of
\nconstitutional\tprovisions contained in Articl 348(2) of the
\nConstitution.\tThe high pedestal on which Rule 2(b) of\t the
\nHigh  Court  Rules has been placed in Jai Bhansingh’s  case,
\nnot  only violates clear constitutional provisions but\talso
\nintroduces  a clause in Section 86<\/a> of the Act which does not
\nxist.  The entire approach to consideration of the effect of
\nthe  notification issued under Article 348(2)<\/a> appears to  be
\nerroneous.   That apart, the defect of not fling an election
\npetition  in  accordance with Rule 2(b) of the Rules is\t not
\none  of the defec s which falls either under Sections 81<\/a>, 82<\/a>
\nof  117 of the Act so as to attract the rigour of Section 86<\/a>
\nof  the\t Act  as  rightly held in  Devilal’s  case  (supra).
\nWhether\t any other consequences may follow on account of the
\nalleged\t defects  would\t depend\t upon  ther  factors  to  be
\ndetermined at the trial of the election petition but to hold
\nthat  Section  86(1)<\/a>  of  the Act  would  be  attracted\t for
\nnon-compliance with Rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules is not
\ncorrect.  The learned Single Judge of the High Court was rig
\nt  in  rejecting  application, I.A.  No.  5957 of  1999\t and
\nholding\t that  an election petition filed by the  respondent
\ncould  not  be dismissed under Section 86(1)<\/a> of the Act\t for
\nalleged\t non-compliance\t with  Rule 2(b) of the\t High  Court
\nRules relating to presentati n of election petitions.\n<\/p>\n
      It  appears  that the earlier judgment of the  learned
\nSingle\tJudge  in Devilal’s case (supra) was brought to\t the
\nnotice\tof the learned Single Judge hearing Jai\t Bhansingh’s
\ncase.\tThe  learned  Judge in the later  case\tnoticed\t the
\nidentical  nature  of the two ca ses, but did not share\t the
\nview  of the Bench in Devilal’s case and a contrary view was
\nexpressed.   It\t was  observed:\t  “It may  be  noticed\tthat
\nalthough  like\tcases  should  be  decided  alike  but\tthis
\nprinciple  is  not  in\tabsolute   rule\t nor  of   universal
\napplication.   It does admit exceptions.  Where there is  no
\ndiscussion regarding applicability of the relevant statutory
\nprovis\tons and the decision has been reached by a Bench  in
\nthe  absence  of knowledge of a decision binding on it or  a
\nstatute\t and  in either case it is shown that had the  Court
\nhad  the  said\tmaterial before it, it must have  reached  a
\ncontrary  decision,  it is clear y a case of a decision\t per
\nincuriam  which has no binding effect.\tThis principle\tdoes
\nnot  extend to a case where if different arguments had\tbeen
\nplaced\tbefore\tthe said Bench or a different  material\t had
\nbeen  placed  before it, it might have reached a  diffe\t ent
\nconclusion.” (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
      We  are unable to appreciate as to how the judgment in
\nDevilal’s  case\t could\tbe styled as “per  incuriam”.\tThat
\napart,\tthe  ground on which the judgment in Devilal’s\tcase
\n(supra) has been distinguished does not stand to reason.  We
\nhave   not  been  able\tto   appreciate\t the  logic  of\t the
\nobservations  of the learned Single Judge in Devilal’s\tcase
\n(supra)\t that  the cont oversy in Jai Bhansingh’s  case\t was
\n“quite\tdifferent” and not confined to the applicability  of
\nsection 86<\/a> of the Act alone.  A reference to paragraph 41 of
\nthe judgment in Jai Bhansingh’s case dismissing the election
\npetition   in  limine,\tbrings\tout   the  fal\tacy  of\t the
\n“difference”,  as perceived by the learned Single Judge.  It
\nwas observed :\n<\/p>\n
      “In  view\t of what has been indicated  hereinabove,  I
\nhave  no  hesitation  in holding that the  present  election
\npetition  as framed is not at all entertainable.  Since even
\nthe  limitation\t for  filing a fresh  election\tpetition  in
\naccordance with law and in the anner prescribed has also run
\nout,  it  is  not  possible or\tpermissible  to\t permit\t the
\npetitioner  to remove the defect in the presentation of\t the
\nelection  petition,  the  present election petition  in\t the
\ncircumstances is not at all triable.”\n<\/p>\n
      (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
      How  could it then be said that the controversy in the
\ntwo  cases was, “different” is not understandable ?  We\t are
\nof  the\t considered  opinion  that  the\t view  expressed  in
\nDevilal’s case was correct view of law and the contrary view
\nexpressed  in Jai Bhansingh’s case does not lay down correct
\nlaw.   As the learned Single Judge was not in agreement with
\nthe  view  expressed in Devilal’s case, it would  have\tbeen
\nproper, to maintain judicial discipline, to refer the matter
\nto  a larger Bench rather than to take a different view.  We
\nnote  it with regret an d distress that the said course\t was
\nnot  followed.\t It  is\t well settled that  if\ta  Bench  of
\ncoordinate  jurisdiction  disagrees  with another  Bench  of
\ncoordinate  jurisdiction whether on the basis of  “different
\narguments”  or\totherwise,  on\ta  question  of\t law,  it  s
\nappropriate  that  the matter be referred to a larger  Bench
\nfor  resolution\t of  the  issue rather\tthan  to  leave\t two
\nconflicting  judgments to operate creating confusion.  It is
\nnot proper to sacrifice certainty of law.  Judicial decorum,
\nno  less  than legal p opriety forms the basis\tof  judicial
\nprocedure  and\tit must be respected at all  costs.   Before
\nparting with this aspect of the case, we wish to recall what
\nwas  opined in Mahadeolal Kanodia vs.  Administrator-General
\nof  W.B<\/a>.   :  [1960] 3 SCR 578 :  “…If one thing  is\tmore
\nnecessary  in law than any other thing, it is the quality of
\ncertainty.   That quality would totally disappear if  judges
\nof co-ordinate jurisdiction in a High Court start overruling
\none  another’s\tdecision.  If one division bench of  a\tHigh
\nCourt  is  unable  to  distinguish a  previous\tdecision  of
\nanother\t division  bench,  and\tholding the  view  that\t the
\nearlier\t decision is wrong, itself gives effect to that view
\nthe  result would be utter confusion.  The position would be
\nequally\t bad where a Judge sitting singly in the High  Court
\nis  of opinion that the previous decision of another  single
\nJudge on a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that
\nview  instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench.  In
\nsuch  a\t case  lawyers would not know h w  to  advise  their
\nclients\t and all courts subordinate to the High Court  would
\nfind  themselves  in an embarrassing position of  having  to
\nchoose\tbetween\t dissentient  judgments of  their  own\tHigh
\nCourt…”\n<\/p>\n
      These  salutary  principles appear to have  been\tover
\nlooked\tby the learned Judge deciding Jai Bhansingh’s  case.
\nThus,  for what we have said above, we are not persuaded  to
\ntake  a view different than the one taken by the High  Court
\nin  the present case.  This appeal has no merits.  It  fails
\nand is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
      We  request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of
\nthe election petition.\t…………………….CJI.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001 Bench: S.V.Patil, R.C.Lahoti CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2720 of 2000 PETITIONER: DR. VIJAY LAXMI SADHO Vs. RESPONDENT: JAGDISH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/01\/2001 BENCH: S.V.Patil , R.C.Lahoti JUDGMENT: L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-02T12:35:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-02T12:35:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3778,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001\",\"name\":\"Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-02T12:35:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-02T12:35:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001","datePublished":"2001-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-02T12:35:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001"},"wordCount":3778,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001","name":"Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-02T12:35:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vijay-laxmi-sadho-vs-jagdish-on-5-january-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262108","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=262108"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262108\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}