{"id":2740,"date":"2011-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-01-07T21:50:31","modified_gmt":"2018-01-07T16:20:31","slug":"nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad<\/div>\n
                                                          REPORTABLE\n          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n          CIVIL APPEAL NO......5142............OF 2011\n      (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.14286 of 2010)\n\nNandiesha Reddy                                Appellant\n\n\n                          Versus\n\n\nMrs.Kavitha Mahesh                             Respondent\n\n\n                          With\n\n\n          CIVIL APPEAL NO......5143............OF 2011\n      (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.16337 of 2010)\n\nN.S. Nandish Reddy                             Appellant\n\n\n                          Versus\n\n\nMrs. Kavitha Mahesh                            Respondent\n\n\n\n                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
CHANDRMAULI KR.PRASAD,J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    Nandiesha Reddy got elected to the Karnataka <\/p>\n
Assembly   in   the   general   election   from   K.R.Pura <\/p>\n
Assembly   Constituency   held   on   10th  of   May,   2008.\n<\/p>\n
His   election   was   challenged   by   Kavitha   Mahesh, <\/p>\n
inter alia, on the ground that her nomination was <\/p>\n
illegally   not   accepted   by   the   Returning   Officer <\/p>\n
                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
which   rendered   Nandiesha   Reddy’s   election   void.\n<\/p>\n
Nandiesha Reddy (hereinafter to be referred to as <\/p>\n
`the Returned Candidate’) filed two applications;\n<\/p>\n
one under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil <\/p>\n
Procedure   for   striking   out   pleading   from   the <\/p>\n
election   petition   and   another   under   Sections   83 <\/p>\n
and   86   of   the   Representation   of   the   People   Act, <\/p>\n
1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as `the Act’) <\/p>\n
read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil <\/p>\n
Procedure,   1908   for   dismissal   of   the   election <\/p>\n
petition.   The   Karnataka   High   Court   by   the <\/p>\n
impugned   orders   dated   8th  October,   2009   and <\/p>\n
12th      November,   2009   dismissed   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
applications.\n<\/p>\n
2.       The   Returned   Candidate   assails   aforesaid <\/p>\n
orders in the present Special Leave Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
3.       Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
4.       Short   facts   giving   rise   to   the   present <\/p>\n
appeals are that the Election Commission of India <\/p>\n
on   16th  of   April,   2008   notified   its   intention   to <\/p>\n
hold   General   election   to   the   Karnataka   State <\/p>\n
                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
Legislative   Assembly   and   announced   the   election <\/p>\n
schedule.   According   to   the   schedule,   the   last <\/p>\n
date for submission of the nomination was 23rd  of <\/p>\n
April,   2008   whereas   the   scrutiny   of   the <\/p>\n
nomination papers was to be undertaken on 24th  of <\/p>\n
April, 2008.   The date of election fixed was 10th <\/p>\n
of   May,   2008.   Kavitha   Mahesh   (hereinafter <\/p>\n
referred to as `the Election Petitioner’) was an <\/p>\n
electorate   in   the   combined   Varthur   Assembly <\/p>\n
Constituency   prior   to   de-limitation.   After   de-\n<\/p>\n
limitation   the   said   constituency   has   been   split <\/p>\n
into         three         constituencies,         namely         (i) <\/p>\n
Mahadevapura   (ii)   C.V.Raman   Nagar   and   (iii) <\/p>\n
K.R.Pura.   After   the   de-limitation,   the   Election <\/p>\n
Petitioner’s name appeared in the electoral roll <\/p>\n
of   C.V.Ramana   Nagar   Constituency.   In   order   to <\/p>\n
contest   the   election   from   K.R.Pura   Assembly <\/p>\n
Constituency,   according   to   the   Election <\/p>\n
Petitioner, on 19th  of April, 2008 she obtained a <\/p>\n
set   of   nomination   forms   from   the   Returning <\/p>\n
Officer.   It   is   her   case   that   on   23rd  of   April, <\/p>\n
2008   at   about   2.00   P.M.   she   delivered   the <\/p>\n
                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
nomination papers together with all annexures to <\/p>\n
the   Returning   Officer   and   requested   him   to <\/p>\n
furnish   the   latest   electoral   roll   of   K.R.Pura <\/p>\n
Assembly Constituency in order to extract the new <\/p>\n
part   number   and   serial   number   of   the   proposers <\/p>\n
who   had   signed   on   the   nomination   papers   for <\/p>\n
incorporating the same in the appropriate column <\/p>\n
against   their   respective   names.   It   is   alleged <\/p>\n
that the Returning Officer instead of furnishing <\/p>\n
the   latest   electoral   roll   of   K.R.Pura   Assembly <\/p>\n
Constituency,   asked   the   Election   Petitioner   to <\/p>\n
approach   the   Revenue   Office   to   obtain   those <\/p>\n
details.  It has specifically been averred by the <\/p>\n
Election Petitioner that she went to the Revenue <\/p>\n
Office   but   could   not   get   those   details   from   the <\/p>\n
Revenue   Officer   and   therefore,   she   went   to   file <\/p>\n
the nomination papers, presented the same before <\/p>\n
the Returning Officer but it was not received. It <\/p>\n
is her allegation that, thereafter, she attempted <\/p>\n
to   give   a   handwritten   representation   to   the <\/p>\n
Returning   Officer   but   the   same   was   also   not <\/p>\n
accepted.     Hence   she   left   the   place   without <\/p>\n
                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
filing the nomination. It is also her allegation <\/p>\n
that on 28th of April, 2008, she filed a complaint <\/p>\n
in   this   regard   before   the   Chief   Election <\/p>\n
Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
5.    The   election   was   held   on   10th  of   May,   2008 <\/p>\n
and its result was published on 27th  of May, 2008 <\/p>\n
in   which   the   Returned   Candidate   was   declared <\/p>\n
elected   from   K.R.Pura   Assembly   Constituency.\n<\/p>\n
This was challenged by the Election Petitioner in <\/p>\n
an   election   petition   before   the   Karnataka   High <\/p>\n
Court.     The   Election   of   the   Returned   Candidate <\/p>\n
was   sought   to   be   declared   null   and   void   on   the <\/p>\n
ground   of   illegal   rejection   of   nomination   paper <\/p>\n
at threshold by the Returning Officer.\n<\/p>\n
6.    As   usual,   the   Returned   Candidate   filed <\/p>\n
applications   for   striking   out   various   paragraphs <\/p>\n
from the election petition.   This was registered <\/p>\n
as   Misc.   Civil   No.   15204   of   2009.     Another <\/p>\n
application   for   dismissal   of   the   election <\/p>\n
petition was filed which was registered as Misc.\n<\/p>\n
Civil No. 15772 of 2009.   In this application it <\/p>\n
                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
was   pointed   out   that   as   the   Election   Petitioner <\/p>\n
was   not   a   candidate   set   up   by   any   recognised <\/p>\n
political   party,   for   valid   nomination   according <\/p>\n
to first proviso of Section 33 (1) of the Act the <\/p>\n
nomination paper was required to be subscribed by <\/p>\n
ten electors of the constituency. It was further <\/p>\n
pointed   out   that   the   Election   Petitioner   shall <\/p>\n
not   be   deemed   to   be   duly   nominated   for   election <\/p>\n
from   the   constituency   as   she   had   not   made   any <\/p>\n
deposit as required under Section 34 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The   Returned   Candidate   further   alleged   non-\n<\/p>\n
compliance   of   Section   81(3)   of   the   Act   and <\/p>\n
contended that he has not been furnished with the <\/p>\n
true   attested   copy   of   the   election   petition   and <\/p>\n
its   annexures   as   presented   to   the   Court.   The <\/p>\n
Returned   Candidate   also   sought   dismissal   of   the <\/p>\n
election petition on the ground that the same did <\/p>\n
not   contain   concise   statement   of   the   material <\/p>\n
facts on which the Election Petitioner relied and <\/p>\n
the   material   facts   averred   did   not   disclose   any <\/p>\n
cause of action for the relief sought for.\n<\/p>\n
                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
7.    All   these   pleas   raised   by   the   Returned <\/p>\n
candidate were considered and have been overruled <\/p>\n
by   the   High   Court   by   the   impugned   orders.   While <\/p>\n
rejecting the application (Civil Misc. No. 15204 <\/p>\n
of   2009)   for   striking   out   the   pleading   from   the <\/p>\n
election   petition   by   order   dated   8th  October, <\/p>\n
2009, the High Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “53.   It   is   for   this   reason,   I   am   of
\n          the   view   that   the   pleadings   in   the
\n          petition does not warrant striking off
\n          and   assuming   that   some   pleadings   are
\n          really   not   necessary,   ultimately   if
\n          the   retaining   or   permitting   the
\n          pleading   to   exist   does   not   result   in
\n          any   prejudice   or   embarrassment   to   the
\n          respondent and at any rate, if at all
\n          there   being   certain   complaint   or
\n          allegation   against   the   returning
\n          officer   and   his   failure   to   adhere   to
\n          the   duties   in   terms   of   the   statutory
\n          provisions   and   that   being   a   relevant
\n          plea   in   the   context   of   wrongful
\n          rejection of a nomination paper, I am
\n          of the view that there is no occasion
\n          to   strike   out   the   pleadings   as   is
\n          sought   to   be   made   out   in   the
\n          application.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.    The High Court rejected Civil Misc. No. 15772 <\/p>\n
of 2009 by order dated 12th  of November, 2009 and <\/p>\n
while considering the plea that the averments in <\/p>\n
                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
the election petition did not disclose any cause <\/p>\n
of action for granting the relief in terms of the <\/p>\n
prayer the High Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        ” 55.     Whether   the   nomination   as   was
\n        delivered   to   the   returning   officer   by
\n        the   petitioner   as   a   candidate   at   1400
\n        hours on 23-4-2088 in fact, did  amount
\n        to  a  valid  nomination  within  the  scope
\n        of the provisions of Section 33 or not,
\n        is  not  a  question  that  surfaces  itself
\n        for   examination   at   this   stage,   but
\n        later   and   for   the   purpose   of   applying
\n        the   drastic   penal   provision   of   Order
\n        VII   Rule   11(a)   CPC,   we   have   to
\n        necessarily accept the plea at its face
\n        value   and   not   by   seeking   for   further
\n        elaboration   or   for   the   proof   for   the
\n        same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        56. …………. in my considered opinion, the
\n        petition   averments   contain   sufficient
\n        plea to disclose a cause of action and
\n        for   granting   relief   in   terms   of   the
\n        prayer.   It   is,   therefore,   in   my
\n        opinion,   that   the   election   petition
\n        cannot   be   dismissed   on   the   application
\n        [filed   by   the   respondent-   returned
\n        candidate]   applying   the   test   of   the
\n        provisions   of   Order   VII   Rule   11   (a)
\n        CPC.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.    As   regards   the   plea   of   non-deposit   as <\/p>\n
required   under   Section   34   of   the   Act,   the   High <\/p>\n
Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       ” 105.                     Responding   to   this
\n       contention,   petitioner   has   submitted
\n       that while the deposit is a requirement <\/p>\n
                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
      in law, a deposit can be made till the
\n      last  moment;  that  there  was  still  time
\n      for   presenting   the   nomination   paper,
\n      that   when   the   petitioner   attempted   to
\n      present   the   nomination   paper,   time   for
\n      presentation   had   not   yet   come   to   an
\n      end;  that  even  assuming  that  there  was
\n      no deposit, it was the bounden duty of
\n      the  returning  officer  to  point  out  the
\n      requirement   of   deposit   fee   and   enable
\n      the   candidate   to   arrange   for   deposit
\n      and   it   is   only   thereafter   if   the
\n      deposit   is   not   made   before   the   expiry
\n      of   time   of   filing   of   nomination,   then
\n      alone,  the  provisions  of  Section  34  of
\n      the Act can be said to come into play;
\n      that   the   provisions   of   sub-section   (4)
\n      of Section 36 of the Act takes care of
\n      the situation and such a situation will
\n      arise   only   when   the   returning   Officer
\n      having   consciously   and   deliberately
\n      avoided         even         scrutinizing         the
\n      nomination   papers,   by   not   even
\n      receiving   the   nomination   paper,   the
\n      argument is only hypothetical and is of
\n      no   consequence   in   determining   the
\n      validity   of   the   election   petition   nor
\n      the validity of the nomination paper.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      106.   I   have   bestowed   my   attention   to
\n      the   submission   made   at   the   bar   and   I
\n      find   that   the   argument   is   really
\n      hypothetical,   particularly   as   the
\n      returning officer had not even cared to
\n      look  into  the  nomination  paper,  as  was
\n      presented   by   the   petitioner-candidate
\n      or on her behalf by her supporters.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     As regards the plea of the Returned Candidate <\/p>\n
that the Election Petitioner did not furnish the <\/p>\n
copy   of   the   election   petition   and   its   annexures <\/p>\n
                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
as was presented to the Court and that the copies <\/p>\n
were   not   duly   attested,   the   High   Court   answered <\/p>\n
the same in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
              “.   .   .   What   had   been   filed   as
\n         election   petition   and   annexures   with
\n         the   registry   at   the   time   of   initial
\n         presentation   have   all   been,   without
\n         dispute,   furnished   to   the   respondent.
\n         Even a discrepancy with regard to the
\n         so-called   index,   which   has   to   be
\n         construed   as   a   list   of   documents,   in
\n         my   considered   opinion,   does   not   make
\n         any   difference   for   the   understanding
\n         of   the   contents   of   the   petition     and
\n         the   manner     in   which   the   election
\n         petitioner   has   sought   for   relief   in
\n         the   election   petition   and   the   grounds
\n         and   materials   relied   upon   by   the
\n         petitioner,   as   copies   of   all   original
\n         documents   are   provided   to   the
\n         respondent   and   even   on   a   comparative
\n         perusal   of   the   papers   in   the   court,
\n         with   the   copies   as   received   by   the
\n         respondent-returned   candidate   made
\n         available   by   the   learned   counsel   for
\n         the   respondent,     I   do   not   find   any
\n         additional papers having been filed by
\n         the petitioner copies of which are not
\n         made   available   to   the   respondent   in
\n         the   sense,   which   can   make   a   material
\n         difference   to   the   respondent   to
\n         understand   the   precise   case   of   the
\n         petitioner, which is not given by the
\n         election petitioner and therefore I am
\n         of   the   view   that   this   is   not   a
\n         situation   warranting   dismissal   of   the
\n         election   petition   under   Section   86   of
\n         the   Act,   on   the   premise   of   non-
\n         compliance with the requirement of the
\n         provisions of Section 81 of the Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
     The   Returned   Candidate’s   pleas   that   the <\/p>\n
election   petition   does   not   contain   concise <\/p>\n
statement of material facts as contemplated under <\/p>\n
Section   83   (1)   of   the   Act   and   has   not   been <\/p>\n
verified   in   the   manner   as   laid   down   under   Order <\/p>\n
VI Rule 15 (1) of the Act have also been rejected <\/p>\n
by the High Court. The High Court reproduced the <\/p>\n
verification   in   its   impugned   judgment   and   found <\/p>\n
the   same   to   be   in   three   parts   and   observed   as <\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
              “………   part-I   is   within   the
\n         knowledge of the petitioner, para-II
\n         based   on   the   information   and   belief
\n         and part-III on the information that
\n         the   petitioner   believes   to   be   true
\n         etc.   In   my   considered   view,   the
\n         verification even as it stands as of
\n         now,   and   with   reference   to   the
\n         manner   of   presentation   of   the
\n         petition   and   having   trifurcated   or
\n         separated   the   petition   to   parts,
\n         sufficiently   and   in   substantial
\n         manner complies with the requirement
\n         of   verification,   In   terms   of   clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         -c of sub-section (1) of Section 83
\n         of   the   Act   and   therefore   this
\n         argument cannot be one to reject the
\n         election   petition   at   the   threshold,
\n         on   the   premise   that   certain
\n         requirements   in   law   are   not
\n         fulfilled.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             12<\/span><\/p>\n
10. Mr.   Dushyant   Dave,   learned   Senior   Counsel <\/p>\n
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   points   out <\/p>\n
that from the averments in the election petition <\/p>\n
it is apparent that Election Petitioner was not a <\/p>\n
candidate set up by a recognised political party <\/p>\n
and   her   nomination   was   not   subscribed   by   10 <\/p>\n
electors.Accordingly he submits that the Election <\/p>\n
Petitioner cannot be considered to be a candidate <\/p>\n
so   as   to   maintain   the   election   petition.     He <\/p>\n
draws   our   attention   to   the   first   proviso   of <\/p>\n
Section 33 of the Act and points out that for a <\/p>\n
valid   nomination   it   has   to   be   subscribed   by   10 <\/p>\n
electors.     In   support   of   the   submission   learned <\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   appellant   relies   on   a <\/p>\n
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the <\/p>\n
case   of  Mithilesh   K.   Sinha   v.   Returning   Officer <\/p>\n
for Presidential Election 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 386 <\/p>\n
and   our   attention   is   drawn   to   paragraphs   30   and <\/p>\n
31 of the judgment which read as under:\n<\/p>\n
        ”    30.  To   be   entitled   to   present   an
\n        election   petition   calling   in   question
\n        an election, the petitioner should have
\n        been   a   `candidate’   at   such   election
\n        within the meaning of Section 13(a) for <\/p>\n
                     13<\/span><\/p>\n
which   he   should   have   been   “duly
\nnominated   as   a   candidate”   and   this   he
\ncannot   claim   unless   the   mandatory
\nrequirements   of   Section   5-B(1)(a)   and
\nSection 5-C were complied by him. Where
\non   undisputed   facts   there   was   non-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
compliance   of   any   of   these   mandatory
\nrequirements   for   a   valid   nomination,
\nthe   petitioner   was   not   a   `candidate’
\nwithin   the   meaning   of   Section   13(a)
\nand, therefore, not competent according
\nto   Section   14-A   to   present   the
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
31. It is also settled by the decisions
\nof this Court that in order to have the
\nrequisite locus standi as a `candidate’
\nwithin the meaning of Section 13(a) for
\nbeing   entitled   to   present   such   an
\nelection   petition   in   accordance   with
\nSection  14-A  of  the  Act  the  petitioner
\nmust   be   duly   nominated   as   a   candidate
\nin   accordance   with   Section   5-B(1)(a)
\nand   Section   5-C.   Unless   it   is   so   the
\npetitioner   cannot   even   claim   to   have
\nbeen   duly   nominated   as   a   candidate   at
\nthe   election   as   required   by   Section
\n13(a).   The   above   conclusion   in   respect
\nof   the   nomination   paper   of   the
\npetitioner, Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, from
\nthe   facts   set   out   by   him   in   the
\npetition,  stated  by  him  at  the  hearing
\nand evident from the documents filed by
\nhim makes it clear that the petitioner,
\nMithilesh   Kumar   Sinha,   has   no   locus
\nstandi to challenge the election of the
\nreturned   candidate,   Dr   Shanker   Dayal
\nSharma   as   he   is   not   competent   to
\npresent   the   election   petition   in
\naccordance with Section 14-A of the Act
\nread   with   Order   39   Rule   7   of   Supreme
\nCourt   Rules.   Even   otherwise   the   ground
\nunder   Section   18(1)(c)   of   the   Act   of <\/p>\n
                            14<\/span><\/p>\n
      wrongful   rejection   of   his   nomination
\n      paper   urged   in   the   election   petition
\n      does   not   give   rise   to   a   triable   issue
\n      on the above facts and the irresistible
\n      conclusion   therefrom.   The   material
\n      facts to make out a prima facie case of
\n      existence of that ground are lacking in
\n      the pleadings and squarely negatived by
\n      petitioner’s own statement.”\n<\/p>\n
    Reliance   has   also   been   placed   on   a   decision <\/p>\n
of this Court in the case of  Pothula Rama Rao v.\n<\/p>\n
Pendyala Venakata Krishna Rao (2007) 11 SCC 1 and <\/p>\n
reference has been made to paragraphs 7 and 8 of <\/p>\n
the judgment which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “7.  The   first   respondent   was   the
\n      official   candidate   of   TDP,   as   he   was
\n      issued   the   B-Form   by   TDP.   Atchuta
\n      Ramaiah’s          nomination         was         not
\n      subscribed by 10 proposers but by only
\n      one   proposer.   The   nomination   of
\n      Atchuta   Ramaiah   was   rejected   by   the
\n      Returning   Officer,   not   on   the   ground
\n      that   he   was   a   “dummy   candidate”   but
\n      because   his   nomination   was   not
\n      subscribed   by   ten   voters   of   the
\n      constituency,   and   thus   there   was   non-
\n      compliance   with   the   first   proviso   to
\n      Section   33(1).   The   rejection   is   under
\n      sub-section (2)(b) of Section 36 which
\n      provides   for   rejection   of   any
\n      nomination   on   the   ground   that   there
\n      has   been   a   failure   to   comply   with
\n      provision of Section 33 or Section 34.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8.  If an election petitioner wants to
\n      put forth a plea that a nomination was
\n      improperly   rejected,   as   a   ground   for <\/p>\n
                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
       declaring   an   election   to   be   void,   it
\n       is necessary to set out the averments
\n       necessary   for   making   out   the   said
\n       ground.   The   reason   given   by   the
\n       Returning   Officer   for   rejection   and
\n       the   facts   necessary   to   show   that   the
\n       rejection   was   improper,   should   be   set
\n       out.   If   the   nomination   had   been
\n       rejected   for   non-compliance   with   the
\n       first   proviso   to   sub-section   (1)   of
\n       Section   33,   that   is,   the   candidate’s
\n       nomination not being subscribed by ten
\n       voters   as   proposers,   the   election
\n       petition   should   contain   averments   to
\n       the   effect   that   the   nomination   was
\n       subscribed   by   ten   proposers   who   were
\n       electors   of   the   constituency   and
\n       therefore,   the   nomination   was   valid.
\n       Alternatively,   the   election   petition
\n       should aver that the candidate was set
\n       up by a recognised political party by
\n       issue   of   a   valid   B-Form   and   that   his
\n       nomination was signed by an elector of
\n       the   constituency   as   a   proposer,   and
\n       that   the   rejection   was   improper   as
\n       there   was   no   need   for   ten   proposers.
\n       In   the   absence   of   such   averments,   it
\n       cannot   be   said   that   the   election
\n       petition   contains   the   material   facts
\n       to make out a cause of action.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11. Election   Petitioner   appears   in   person.     She <\/p>\n
submits that her nomination paper was subscribed <\/p>\n
by ten electors of the Constituency and presented <\/p>\n
before the Returning Officer but the same was not <\/p>\n
accepted.   We have bestowed our consideration to <\/p>\n
the rival submissions.   The Election Petitioner, <\/p>\n
                                       16<\/span><\/p>\n
in the election petition, has stated that she had <\/p>\n
“obtained TEN PROPOSERS signatures in Part II of <\/p>\n
Annexure   `A’   together   with   their   true   copies   of <\/p>\n
their Elector Photo Identity Cards”.  Her further <\/p>\n
plea in the election petition is that “as per the <\/p>\n
given   new   part   number,   when   we   checked   for   the <\/p>\n
names of the proposers in the concerned Electoral <\/p>\n
Roll, their names were not found”.   The relevant <\/p>\n
pleadings in this regard are at paragraphs 9, 10 <\/p>\n
and   11   of   the   election   petition   and   we   deem   it <\/p>\n
expedient to reproduce the same as under:\n<\/p>\n
           “9. It is most respectfully submitted
\n        that   the   petitioner   on   realizing   the
\n        time   factor   to   submit   the   nomination
\n        before the 4th  respondent by 1500 hours
\n        and   since   the   day   being   the   last   day
\n        for   filing   nomination   papers,   has
\n        presented               her          nomination           papers
\n        together   with   all   necessary   enclosures
\n        before   the   4th  Respondent   with   sole
\n        intention to comply the requirements of
\n        new   part   number   and   serial   number   in
\n        respect of the proposers at the time of
\n        scrutiny   of   nomination   paper,   which   is
\n        scheduled   for   next   day   the   24th  April,
\n        2008   wherein   a   clear   24   hours   time
\n        would   be   available   before   the
\n        Petitioner               to          make         good         the
\n        requirements   in   her   nomination   paper. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        The   petitioner   also   explained   the
\n        reason   and   the   actual   position
\n        prevailing   in   the   revenue   office   and
\n        also   requested   the   4th  respondent   to <\/p>\n
                           17<\/span><\/p>\n
receive   her   nomination   paper   and   allow
\ntime   till   scrutiny   to   comply   the
\nrequirement whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
10.    It  is  most  respectfully  submitted
\nthat to the petitioners surprise the 4th
\nrespondent   spontaneously   reacted   and
\ncommented   “I   do   not   want   to   listen   to
\nall your stories and I will not receive
\nyour nomination paper without complying
\nwith the requirement of new part number
\nand serial number against the proposers
\nin   Part-II   of   Annexure   `A’   and   if   you
\ncompel me to receive now and tomorrow I
\nwill reject it”.  At that point of time
\nthe   petitioner   on   realizing   the
\nlanguage   of   the   4th  respondent,   his
\nuncalled   for,   unwarranted   comments,
\nwhich   clearly   indicated   pre-determined
\nulterior   motive,   has   decided   to   submit
\nthe   nomination   paper   together   with   a
\nwritten   representation   addressed   to
\nRespondent   No.   4,   requesting   him   to
\nreceive   the   petitioners   nomination
\npapers,   since   true   copies   of   Elector
\nPhoto   Identity   Cards   issued   prior   to
\ndelimitation   duly   self   attested   by   the
\nrespective   proposers   and   true   copy   of
\nenumeration   details   are   being   enclosed
\nto   prove   the   identity,   address   and
\nauthenticity   of   the   proposers   beyond
\nany   doubt.                 The   Representation
\nhandwritten by the Petitioner and typed
\ncopy   is   marked   as   Annexure-`P’,   and
\nrequested   him   for   time   till   scrutiny
\nfor   complying   with   the   requirements
\nwhatsoever as per law.\n<\/p>\n
11. It   is   most   respectfully   submitted
\nthat   the   Respondent   No.   4   once   again
\nreacted  in  the  same  manner  and  bluntly
\nrefused         to         receive         petitioner’s
\nnomination   papers   and   further   adding
\ninsult   to   injury,   he   has   commented   “I <\/p>\n
                               18<\/span><\/p>\n
       will   not   receive   your   nomination   paper
\n       or   your   representation   or   acknowledge
\n       any   receipt   and   continued   to   say   “for
\n       your   negligence   you   cannot   blame   other
\n       people”.     The   petitioner   on   observing
\n       4th  respondents   illegal   and   improper
\n       rejection in violation of statutory law
\n       and   election   commission’s   guidelines,
\n       was left with no option but to presume
\n       the   existence   of   prejudice   and
\n       predetermined   ulterior   motive   behind
\n       the fourth respondents illegal attitude
\n       and   misuse   of   power.     As   such   the
\n       petitioner            left         the          premises
\n       humiliated, insulted by the illegal and
\n       improper   rejection   of   her   nomination
\n       paper  by  none  other  than  a  responsible
\n       neutral         official           like         Returning
\n       Officer.”\n<\/p>\n
12. From a plain reading of these averments it is <\/p>\n
evident that the Election Petitioner has averred <\/p>\n
that nomination paper was signed by 10 electors.\n<\/p>\n
It was delivered to the Returning Officer with a <\/p>\n
request   to   make   available   latest   electoral   roll <\/p>\n
of K.R. Pura Constituency for filling up the new <\/p>\n
part number and serial number of the proposers in <\/p>\n
the   respective   columns.     However,   the   Returning <\/p>\n
Officer   stated   that   he   is   not   in   possession <\/p>\n
thereof   and   asked   the   Election   Petitioner   to <\/p>\n
approach the revenue office located at the ground <\/p>\n
floor   for   verifying   and   extracting   the   part <\/p>\n
                             19<\/span><\/p>\n
number   and   serial   number   of   the   proposers.\n<\/p>\n
Attempts   made   on   behalf   of   the   Election <\/p>\n
Petitioner to get those details from the revenue <\/p>\n
office   were   rendered   futile.   Thereafter,   the <\/p>\n
Election   Petitioner   approached   the   Returning <\/p>\n
Officer again for delivering the nomination paper <\/p>\n
with the explanation. It did not yield any result <\/p>\n
and   the   Returning   Officer   stated   that   he   “will <\/p>\n
not   receive   your   nomination   paper   without <\/p>\n
complying the requirement of new part number and <\/p>\n
serial number against the proposers in Part-II of <\/p>\n
Annexure `A’ and if you compel me to receive now, <\/p>\n
tomorrow   I   will   reject   it”.     These   averments   at <\/p>\n
this   stage   have   to   be   accepted   as   true   and, <\/p>\n
therefore, the question is as to whether Election <\/p>\n
Petitioner can be said to be a candidate so as to <\/p>\n
maintain   the   election   petition   and   further   the <\/p>\n
Returning Officer was right in refusing to accept <\/p>\n
the nomination paper on the purported ground that <\/p>\n
it   did   not   contain   the   serial   number   and   part <\/p>\n
number  of the  proposers.    Section 81  of the  Act <\/p>\n
inter alia provides for presentation of election <\/p>\n
                            20<\/span><\/p>\n
petition.  It reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “81.   Presentation   of   petitions.–(1)   An
\n         election   petition   calling   in   question
\n         any election may be presented on one or
\n         more   of   the   grounds   specified   in   sub-
\n         section   (1)   of   section   100   and   section
\n         101   to   the   High   Court   by   any   candidate
\n         at   such   election   or   any   elector   within
\n         forty-five   days   from,   but   not   earlier
\n         than   the   date   of   election   of   the
\n         returned candidate, or if there are more
\n         than   one   returned   candidate   at   the
\n         election and the dates of their election
\n         are   different,   the   later   of   those   two
\n         dates.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Explanation.–In               this         sub-section,
\n         “elector”   means   a   person   who   was
\n         entitled   to   vote   at   the   election   to
\n         which   the   election   petition   relates,
\n         whether he has voted at such election or
\n         not.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         1. * * * * *<\/p>\n
         [(3)   Every   election   petition   shall   be
\n         accompanied by as many copies thereof as
\n         there   are   respondents   mentioned   in   the
\n         petition   [***],   and   every   such   copy
\n         shall   be   attested   by   the   petitioner
\n         under   his   own   signature   to   be   a   true
\n         copy of the petition.]”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13. From   a   plain   reading   of   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
provision it is evident that an election petition <\/p>\n
calling in question any election can be presented <\/p>\n
by any candidate at such election.  Candidate, in <\/p>\n
our opinion, would not be only such person whose <\/p>\n
nomination form has been accepted for scrutiny or <\/p>\n
                             21<\/span><\/p>\n
whose   name   appears   in   the   list   of   validly <\/p>\n
nominated   candidate,   that   is   to   say,   candidates <\/p>\n
whose   nominations   have   been   found   valid.     Here, <\/p>\n
in   the   present   case,   the   Election   Petitioner’s <\/p>\n
plea   is   that   the   Returning   Officer   declined   to <\/p>\n
accept   the   nomination   paper.     We   are   of   the <\/p>\n
opinion that when a nomination paper is presented <\/p>\n
it   is   the   bounden   duty   of   the   Returning   Officer <\/p>\n
to   receive   the   nomination,   peruse   it,   point   out <\/p>\n
the   defects,   if   any,   and   allow   the   candidate   to <\/p>\n
rectify the defects and when the defects are not <\/p>\n
removed   then   alone   the   question   of   rejection   of <\/p>\n
nomination   would   arise.     Any   other   view,   in   our <\/p>\n
opinion, will lead to grave consequences and the <\/p>\n
Returning   Officers   may   start   refusing   to   accept <\/p>\n
the nomination at the threshold which may ensure <\/p>\n
victory   to   a   particular   candidate   at   the <\/p>\n
election.  This is fraught with danger, difficult <\/p>\n
to  fathom.    Section 33(4)  of the  Act casts  duty <\/p>\n
on   a   Returning   Officers   to   satisfy   himself   that <\/p>\n
the   names   and   the   electoral   roll   numbers   of   the <\/p>\n
candidates and their proposers as entered in the <\/p>\n
                              22<\/span><\/p>\n
nomination paper are the same as in the electoral <\/p>\n
rolls   and,   therefore,   in   our   opinion,   the <\/p>\n
Election   Petitioner   for   the   purpose   of <\/p>\n
maintaining an election petition shall be deemed <\/p>\n
to be a candidate.\n<\/p>\n
14. As   regards   failure   to   subscribe   the <\/p>\n
nomination   papers   by   10   electors   as   required <\/p>\n
under the first proviso to Section 33 of the Act, <\/p>\n
the   plea   of   the   Election   Petitioner   is   that   it <\/p>\n
was   so   subscribed.   Whether   in   fact   was   done   or <\/p>\n
not   is   a   matter   of   trial   and   at   this   stage   we <\/p>\n
have   to   proceed   on   an   assumption   that   the <\/p>\n
averments made in the election petition are true.\n<\/p>\n
There is clear averment in the election petition <\/p>\n
that   nomination   paper   was   subscribed   by   10 <\/p>\n
electors.   In  the face  of aforesaid  there is  no <\/p>\n
escape   from   the   conclusion   that   the   Election <\/p>\n
Petitioner shall be deemed to be a candidate and <\/p>\n
entitled   to   challenge   the   election   of   the <\/p>\n
Returned Candidate.\n<\/p>\n
15. Now we revert to the authority of this Court <\/p>\n
in   the   case   of  Mithilesh   K.   Sinha   (supra).     In <\/p>\n
                             23<\/span><\/p>\n
the   said   case   election   of   the   President   was <\/p>\n
challenged and it was found that the subsequently <\/p>\n
delivered   nomination   paper   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
petitioner of the said case was not subscribed by <\/p>\n
at   least   ten   electors   as   proposers   and   at   least <\/p>\n
ten electors as seconders as required by Section <\/p>\n
5(B)(1)(a)   of   the   Presidential   and   Vice-\n<\/p>\n
Presidential   Elections   Act,   1952   and   in   that <\/p>\n
background   it   was   held   that   he   was   not   a <\/p>\n
candidate   competent   to   present   the   petition.\n<\/p>\n
Here, in the present case, as stated earlier, the <\/p>\n
Election   Petitioner   has   averred   that              her <\/p>\n
nomination   was   subscribed   by   ten   electors   and <\/p>\n
that averment at this stage has to be treated as <\/p>\n
correct   and,   therefore,   this   distinguishes   the <\/p>\n
case   in   hand   from   the   case   of  Mithilesh   K.\n<\/p>\n
Sinha (supra).\n<\/p>\n
16.  In  the case  of  Pothula Rama Rao (supra)  the <\/p>\n
Election   Petitioner’s   averment   was   that   his <\/p>\n
nomination   was   rejected   on   the   untenable   ground <\/p>\n
that   he   was   a   dummy   or   substitute   candidate   set <\/p>\n
up   by   the   TDP.     However,   there   was   no   averment <\/p>\n
                            24<\/span><\/p>\n
that he was set up as a candidate by TDP in the <\/p>\n
manner   contemplated   in   paragraph   13   of   the <\/p>\n
Symbols Order, that is, by issuing a valid B-Form <\/p>\n
in   his   favour.     Nor   did   the   election   petition <\/p>\n
aver that his nomination paper was subscribed by <\/p>\n
ten electors.   In the face of it this Court came <\/p>\n
to the conclusion that the election petition was <\/p>\n
lacking in material facts necessary to make out a <\/p>\n
cause  of action.   Here,  in the  present case,  as <\/p>\n
stated   earlier,   the   Election   Petitioner   has <\/p>\n
clearly   averred   that   his   nomination   was <\/p>\n
subscribed   by   ten   electors   and   presented   before <\/p>\n
the   Returning   Officer   but   the   same   was   not <\/p>\n
received   and   rejected.   Thus   one   of   the   grounds <\/p>\n
for declaring the election to be void as provided <\/p>\n
under   Section   100(1)(c)   of   the   Act   was <\/p>\n
specifically pleaded.  Thus, the decision of this <\/p>\n
Court in the case of  Pothula Rama Rao (supra)  in <\/p>\n
no way supports the plea of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
17.  Mr.   Dushyant   Dave,   then   contends   that   the <\/p>\n
Election   Petitioner   has   nowhere   averred   that   he <\/p>\n
had made the deposit as required under Section 34 <\/p>\n
                             25<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Act.  According to him Election Petitioner <\/p>\n
shall   not   be   deemed   to   be   duly   nominated   for <\/p>\n
election   unless   he   deposits   the   amount   provided <\/p>\n
therein.     In   answer   thereto   Election   Petitioner <\/p>\n
submits   that   the   deposit   as   contemplated   under <\/p>\n
Section 34 of the Act can be made till the time <\/p>\n
of   scrutiny   of   the   nomination.   According   to   her <\/p>\n
after accepting the nomination it was the bounden <\/p>\n
duty   of   the   Returning   Officer   to   point   out   the <\/p>\n
requirement   of   deposit   and   enable   the   candidate <\/p>\n
to arrange for deposit and it is only thereafter <\/p>\n
if the deposit is not made, the nomination can be <\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n
18. We have considered the rival submissions and <\/p>\n
we   find   substance   in   the   submission   of   Mrs. <\/p>\n
Mahesh.     We   are   of   the   opinion   that   there   was <\/p>\n
still   time   left   for   presenting   the   nomination <\/p>\n
paper   and   in   case   the   same   would   have   been <\/p>\n
accepted   for   scrutiny,   the   Election   Petitioner <\/p>\n
could   had   made   deposit   within   the   time.     It   is <\/p>\n
only   after   expiry   of   the   time   had   the   Election <\/p>\n
                             26<\/span><\/p>\n
Petitioner   not   made   the   deposit,   the   nomination <\/p>\n
was liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
19. Mr.   Dushyant   Dave,   lastly   submits   that   the <\/p>\n
election petition does not contain material facts <\/p>\n
and   on   this   ground   alone   the   election   petition <\/p>\n
deserves   to   be   rejected   at   the   threshold.\n<\/p>\n
Reliance   has   been   placed   on   a   decision   of   this <\/p>\n
Court   in   the   case   of  Anil   Vasudev  Salgaonkar   v.\n<\/p>\n
Naresh   Kushali   Shigaonkar,   (2009)   9   SCC   310  and <\/p>\n
our   attention   has   been   drawn   to   paragraph   50   of <\/p>\n
the judgment which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “50.  The   position   is   well   settled
\n          that   an   election   petition   can   be
\n          summarily   dismissed   if   it   does   not
\n          furnish   the   cause   of   action   in
\n          exercise of the power under the Code
\n          of   Civil   Procedure.   Appropriate
\n          orders   in   exercise   of   powers   under
\n          the   Code   can   be   passed   if   the
\n          mandatory   requirements   enjoined   by
\n          Section 83 of the Act to incorporate
\n          the   material   facts   in   the   election
\n          petition are not complied with.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Yet   another   decision   on   which   reliance   is <\/p>\n
placed is the decision of this Court in the case <\/p>\n
of  Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal<\/a> (2009) 10 SCC 541 <\/p>\n
                                  27<\/span><\/p>\n
and our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 24 <\/p>\n
and 25 of the judgment which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “24.  It   needs   little   reiteration   that
\n          for         the         purpose         of          Section
\n          100(1)(d)(iv),   it   was   necessary   for   the
\n          election petitioner to aver specifically
\n          in   what   manner   the   result   of   the
\n          election   insofar   as   it   concerned   the
\n          first respondent was materially affected
\n          due to the said omission on the part of
\n          the   Returning   Officer.   Unfortunately,
\n          such averment is missing in the election
\n          petition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          25.  In   our   judgment,   therefore,   the
\n          Election           Tribunal\/High             Court         was
\n          justified   in   coming   to   the   conclusion
\n          that   statement   of   material   facts   in   the
\n          election petition was completely lacking
\n          and   the   petition   was   liable   to   be
\n          rejected   at   the   threshold   on   that
\n          ground.   We   have,   therefore,   no
\n          hesitation   in   upholding   the   view   taken
\n          by   the   High   Court.   Consequently,   this
\n          appeal, being devoid of any merit, fails
\n          and   is   dismissed   accordingly.   Since   the
\n          first   respondent   remained   unrepresented,
\n          there will be no order as to costs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20. Mrs.   Mahesh   has   taken   us   through   the <\/p>\n
averments made in the election petition including <\/p>\n
the   paragraphs   which   we   have   reproduced   in   the <\/p>\n
preceding   paragraphs   of   this   judgment   and <\/p>\n
contends that the election petition does contain <\/p>\n
a   concise   statement   of   material   facts   on   which <\/p>\n
                             28<\/span><\/p>\n
she had relied seeking the relief of declaration <\/p>\n
of   the   election   of   the   Returned   Candidate   to   be <\/p>\n
void.\n<\/p>\n
21. We   have   considered   the   submission   and   the <\/p>\n
submission   advanced   by   Mrs.   Mahesh   commend   us.\n<\/p>\n
It is trite that if an Election Petitioner wants <\/p>\n
to   put   forth   a   plea   that   a   nomination   was <\/p>\n
improperly rejected to declare an election to be <\/p>\n
void it is necessary to set out the averments for <\/p>\n
making out the said ground.   The reason given by <\/p>\n
the   Returning   Officer   for   refusal   to   accept   the <\/p>\n
nomination   and   the   facts   necessary   to   show   that <\/p>\n
the   refusal   was   improper   is   required   to   be   set <\/p>\n
out in the election petition.   In the absence of <\/p>\n
the   necessary   averments   it   cannot   be   said   that <\/p>\n
the election petition contains the material facts <\/p>\n
to   make   out   a   cause   of   action.   Section   83(1)(a) <\/p>\n
inter   alia   provides   that   an   election   petition <\/p>\n
shall contain a concise statement of the material <\/p>\n
facts.     Further,   Section   87   of   the   Act   provides <\/p>\n
that subject to the provisions of the Act and the <\/p>\n
Rules   framed   thereunder   every   election   petition <\/p>\n
                              29<\/span><\/p>\n
shall   be   tried   in   accordance   with   the   procedure <\/p>\n
applicable   under   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   to <\/p>\n
the   trial   of   suits.     Order   VI   of   the   Code   of <\/p>\n
Civil   Procedure   is   devoted   to   the   pleadings <\/p>\n
generally   and   Rule   2(i)   thereof,   inter   alia, <\/p>\n
provides   that   every   pleading   shall   contain <\/p>\n
statement   in   a   concise   form   all   the   material <\/p>\n
facts   on   which   the   party   pleading   relies   for <\/p>\n
claim.     In   an   election   petition,   which   does   not <\/p>\n
contain material facts, no relief can be granted.\n<\/p>\n
The   phrase   `material   fact’   as   used   in   Section <\/p>\n
83(1)(a)   of   the   Act   or   Order   VI   Rule   2   of   the <\/p>\n
Code of Civil Procedure   has not been defined in <\/p>\n
the Act or the Code of Civil Procedure.   In our <\/p>\n
opinion all specific and primary facts which are <\/p>\n
required  to be  proved by  a party  for the  relief <\/p>\n
claimed are material facts.   It is settled legal <\/p>\n
position that all material facts must be pleaded <\/p>\n
by the party on which the relief is founded. Its <\/p>\n
object   and   purpose   is   to   enable   the   contesting <\/p>\n
party to know the case which it has to meet.  An <\/p>\n
election   petition   can   be   summarily   dismissed   if <\/p>\n
                             30<\/span><\/p>\n
it   does   not   furnish   the   material   facts   to   give <\/p>\n
rise to a cause of action.  However, what are the <\/p>\n
material   facts   always   depend   upon   the   facts   of <\/p>\n
each case and no rule of universal application is <\/p>\n
possible to be laid down in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
22. Bearing in mind the aforesaid legal position <\/p>\n
when   we   proceed   to   consider   the   facts   of   the <\/p>\n
present   case   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the <\/p>\n
Election   Petitioner   had   disclosed   material   facts <\/p>\n
and the matter is fit to go for trial.   Whether <\/p>\n
those   material   facts   are   true   or   false   is   a <\/p>\n
matter of trial.   As regards authorities of this <\/p>\n
Court   in   the   case   of  Anil   Vasudev   Salgaonkar <\/p>\n
(supra)   and   Ram   Sukh   (supra)  we   are   of   the <\/p>\n
opinion that the same do not lend support to the <\/p>\n
contention   of   the   appellant.     In   both   the   cases <\/p>\n
this   Court   on   fact   came   to   the   conclusion   that <\/p>\n
the   election   petition   did   not   contain   statement <\/p>\n
of   material   facts   and   accordingly   the   election <\/p>\n
petitions   were   dismissed   at   the   threshold.\n<\/p>\n
However,   in   the   present   case,   on   facts   we   have <\/p>\n
found   that   the   election   petition   does   contain <\/p>\n
                             31<\/span><\/p>\n
material   facts   and   it   is   not   liable   to   be <\/p>\n
dismissed at the threshold.\n<\/p>\n
23. Any   observation   made   by   us   in   this   judgment <\/p>\n
is   for   the   purpose   of   disposal   of   these   appeals <\/p>\n
and   shall   have   no   bearing   at   the   final   decision <\/p>\n
of the election petition.\n<\/p>\n
24. Accordingly, we dismiss both the appeals with <\/p>\n
costs of Rs.25,000\/- to be paid by the appellant <\/p>\n
to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                                       ………………J
\n                                       (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)<\/p>\n
                                   ………………….J
\n                             (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,
\nJuly 8, 2011.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011 Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO……5142…………OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.14286 of 2010) Nandiesha Reddy Appellant Versus Mrs.Kavitha Mahesh Respondent With CIVIL APPEAL NO……5143…………OF 2011 (Arising out of […]<\/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-2740","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011 - 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\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-07T16:20:31+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-07T16:20:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5693,\"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\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-07T16:20:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011 - 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\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-07T16:20:31+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-07T16:20:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011"},"wordCount":5693,"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\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011","name":"Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-07T16:20:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nandiesha-reddy-vs-kavitha-mahesh-on-8-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nandiesha Reddy vs Kavitha Mahesh on 8 July, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/2740","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=2740"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2740\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2740"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2740"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2740"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}