Gyani vs Shri R.K. Choudhary

Heard Shri Vishnu Shankar Jain alongwith Shri Shailendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anupriay Srivastava for the Election Commission of India. Shri S.G. Hasnain, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri N. K. Pandey, Advocate, Shri Kanhaiya Pal, Advocate, Shri Syed Mohd. Fazal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Kumar Maurya, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶12

Today, the matter was fixed for framing of issues. However, today Shri Hasnain prays for an adjournment. It is stated that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been filed in the Registry after serving a copy on the counsel for the petitioner and therefore the said application being peremptory in nature must be decided first.

¶13

Shri Jain learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far as the application is concerned, he has just received the copy and the same is not on record. He further submits that the matter is listed for framing of issues. The respondents have already submitted their proposed issues and the petitioner has also filed his proposed issues, hence as far as the framing of issues is concerned, the same can be done by the Court and mere filing of the application in the Registry of this Court does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court to frame the issues and he further submits that as far as the request for adjournment is concerned, he opposes the

ELEP No. 2 of 2024

2

same.

This Court has considered the aforesaid submission and since the request for adjournment is opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, hence the oral request for adjournment is turned down for the reason that the record would reveal that the defendant while filing his written statement has already raised objection in para 2 to 22 invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, hence the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent appears to be a feeble attempt to get the date adjourned without any sufficient cause hence, this Court does not find it to be a cogent and reasonable ground for adjourning the matter.

¶18

Apparently the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not before the Court. Moreover the parties have already exchanged their pleadings and the matter is ripe for framing of issues, which is primarily the duty of the Court. Hence the Court after perusing the pleadings frames the following issues.

¶19

Issues

¶20

1. Whether in the public meeting held in the 34 Mohanlalganj Lok Sabha Constituency on 12.05.2024, under the banner of PDA where the respondent and with his consent, the President of the Samajwadi Party, his supporters and workers made an appeal to voters to vote in favour of the respondent on the basis of caste and religion, in violation of Section 123(3) of Representative of People Act and as a consequence the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void?

¶21

2. Whether the banner and poster of PDA as displayed in the public meeting dated 12.05.2024 held in 34 Mohanlalganj Lok Sabha Constituency was an appeal to voters to vote in the name of religion and caste and constitute corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the Representative of People Act?

¶22

3. Whether the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representative of People Act for corrupt practice as mentioned in the petition within the meaning of 123(3)

¶23

ELEP No. 2 of 2024

¶24

3

¶25

Representative of People Act?

¶26

4. Whether the respondent has concealed the fact relating to the criminal case pending against him in the nomination papers which is a violation of the provisions of the Representative of People Act and its effect on the election of the respondent?

¶27

5. Whether the election petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in light of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent in para 2 to 22 of the written statement being in violation of the provision of the Representative of People Act?

¶28

6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed?

¶29

In case the defendant has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC of which a copy has been served on the counsel for the petitioner, it will be open for the learned counsel for the petitioner to file his objection thereto prior to the next date.

¶30

The matter shall be listed on 5th of December, 2025 for filing of list of witnesses by both contesting parties and to enable the Court to set out a schedule for recording of evidence.

¶31

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶32

November 15, 2025

¶33

ank

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gyani v. Shri R.K. Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyani v. Shri R.K. Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Bahadur Singh Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager and 3 Others

Smt. Rekha Devi Vs Smt. Suryakali and 5 Others

Sudha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Mr. Kamlesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Jindal Restaurants Thru. Its Authorised Signatory Shri Ujjwal Gupta Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal 600/1 Thru. Presiding Officer Lko. and 5 Others

Manna Lal and Another Vs Addl. Distt. Judge Court No. 1 Unnao and 5 Others

Prithvi Pal vs Smt. Ranjana Awasthi and 3 Others