2011 (1) TMI 1446 - SC - Indian Laws

Summoning of certain documents - Election Petition - Rejection of application praying for the summoning of certain documents on the ground that it was not permissible to summon the said documents - same person cast two votes in the election - it is alleged that Smt. Kalpana Kunwar and Smt. Kalpana Singh (wife of Petitioner) were one and the same person, but her name was registered at two places in the electoral rolls of the constituency and hence she had cast two votes in the election - it is also the case that Six (6) tendered votes cast in the election must be counted and the six (6) votes originally polled against the tendered votes must be rejected. HELD THAT - In KAILASH VERSUS NANHKU ORS. 2005 (4) TMI 542 - SUPREME COURT , this Court held that the trial of an election petition is entirely different from the trial of a civil suit, as in a civil suit trial commences on framing the issues while trial of an election petition encompasses all proceedings commencing from the filing of the election petition up to the date of decision. Therefore, the procedure provided for the trial of civil suits under CPC is not applicable in its entirety to the trial of the election petition. For the purpose of the election petition, the word trial' includes the entire proceedings commencing from the time of filing the election petition till the pronouncement of the judgment. The applicability of the procedure in Election Tribunal is circumscribed by two riders firstly, the procedure prescribed in CPC is applicable only as nearly as may be , and secondly, the CPC would give way to any provisions of the Act or any rules made thereunder. Therefore, the procedure prescribed in CPC applies to election trial with flexibility and only as guidelines. The object of framing issues is to ascertain/shorten the area of dispute and pinpoint the points required to be determined by the court. The issues are framed so that no party at the trial is taken by surprise. It is the issues fixed and not the pleadings that guide the parties in the matter of adducing evidence - There may be an exceptional case wherein the parties proceed to trial fully knowing the rival case and lead all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation thereof by the other side. In such an eventuality, absence of an issue would not be fatal and it would not be permissible for a party to submit that there has been a mis-trial and the proceedings stood vitiated. Thus, it is evident that the party to the election petition must plead the material fact and substantiate its averment by adducing sufficient evidence. The court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and the issue cannot be framed unless there are pleadings to raise the controversy on a particular fact or law. It is, therefore, not permissible for the court to allow the party to lead evidence which is not in the line of the pleadings. Even if the evidence is led that is just to be ignored as the same cannot be taken into consideration. In the case at hand, the election petitioner/respondent has claimed only that there has been irregularity/illegality in counting of 6 tendered votes and the case squarely falls within the ambit of Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, 1951. Election petitioner has further pleaded that the result of the election stood materially affected because of improper receiving the six tendered votes and in absence of any Recrimination Petition in the case the appellant cannot be permitted to lead evidence on the fact which is not in issue - there are no cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of the High Court impugned herein. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Summoning of certain documents related to tendered votes.
2. Allegations of double voting by an individual.
3. Counting of tendered votes and their impact on the election result.
4. Legal principles governing the trial of election petitions and the scope of pleadings.

Detailed Analysis:

Summoning of Certain Documents Related to Tendered Votes:
The appellant sought to summon marked copies of the electoral rolls, register of voters in Form No.17-A, and the list of tendered votes in Form No.17-B for specific polling stations. The High Court rejected this application on the grounds that there were no pleadings or issues framed regarding these documents, and the application was filed after the framing of issues, thus being delayed.

Allegations of Double Voting by an Individual:
The respondent alleged that Smt. Kalpana Kunwar and Smt. Kalpana Singh (wife of the petitioner) were the same person and had cast votes at two different polling stations. This issue was framed and contested in the High Court.

Counting of Tendered Votes and Their Impact on the Election Result:
The respondent claimed that six tendered votes were cast by genuine voters and should be counted, while the votes initially cast by imposters should be rejected. The High Court framed an issue specifically concerning these six tendered votes. The appellant contested this claim but did not provide specific pleadings for the remaining four tendered votes.

Legal Principles Governing the Trial of Election Petitions and the Scope of Pleadings:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial of an election petition is different from a civil suit, and strict adherence to statutory provisions is required. The Court reiterated that issues must be framed based on the pleadings, and evidence cannot be led on matters not pleaded. The Court cited several precedents to underline that the trial of an election petition encompasses all proceedings from filing to judgment, and the procedure under the CPC applies only as guidelines with flexibility.

The Court also noted that the doctrine of equity and substantial justice does not apply in election law, which is strictly statutory. The Court emphasized that relief not founded on pleadings should not be granted, and issues should not be framed on matters not arising from the pleadings.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments and upholding the High Court's judgment that the case was limited to the six tendered votes mentioned in the pleadings. The Court distinguished the case from the precedent cited by the appellant, noting the absence of a Recrimination Petition and specific pleadings regarding the additional four tendered votes.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the necessity of strict adherence to the statutory framework governing election petitions. The appellant's application to summon additional documents was rejected due to lack of pleadings and delay, and the case was limited to the six tendered votes specifically mentioned in the pleadings. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.