Sunil (Bhau) Chandrakant Bhusara vs Harishchandra Sakharam Bhoye — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sunil (Bhau) Chandrakant Bhusara vs Harishchandra Sakharam Bhoye — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Final opportunity with time extended to eight weeks from 11.09.2025 for the Petitioner to comply with the directions in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 10.07.2025, failing which appropriate orders on the next adjourned date; Petitioner to file Affidavit-in-Reply to the Election Commission of India's Interim Application within two weeks; Application (Lodging) No.24590 of 2025 and Application (Lodging) No.9497 of 2025 listed on 25.09.2025 at 03:00 p.m.; Election Petitions stood over to 06.11.2025; liberty to apply for further directions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the companion Election Petition could be heard before the Petitioner complies with the directions contained in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 10.07.2025. +1 more

Court's answer

The Petitioner, having been served with the Election Commission's Interim Application, was directed to file his Affidavit-in-Reply to the same within two weeks.

Ratio / Principle

Compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 10.07.2025 is required before the Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in the companion Election Petition filed by the same Petitioner is heard; Respondent No.1's contention to this effect was upheld by the Court.

Key takeaways

The exigencies mentioned by the Petitioner for complying with the procedure are prima facie purely administrative in nature and should not take time; once directions are passed they are required to be complied with.obiter¶37
One final opportunity was granted to the Petitioner to comply with the directions in the order dated 10.07.2025, with time extended to a period of eight weeks from 11.09.2025, failing which the Court would be constrained to pass appropriate orders on the next adjourned date; liberty was reserved to apply for further directions.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim procedural order (P.C.) dated 11.09.2025 of Milind N. Jadhav, J., High Court of Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), in Election Petition No.19 of 2025 (Sunil (Bhau) Chandrakant Bhusara v. Harishchandra Sakharam Bhoye and Ors.), with companion Election Petition No.37 of 2025 and allied Applications ((L) Nos.24590 and 9497 of 2025 in EP 19/2025, Application No.6 of 2025 in EP 19/2025, and Application No.9 of 2025 in EP 37/2025). The Court accepted Respondent No.1's contention that the Application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the companion Election Petition ought not to be heard unless the Petitioner first complies with the directions contained in paragraph No.2 of the Court's order dated 10.07.2025 (para 3). Observing that the Petitioner's cited exigencies were prima facie purely administrative (para 4), one final opportunity was granted, with time extended to eight weeks from 11.09.2025, failing which appropriate orders were to follow on the next adjourned date; liberty to apply was reserved (paras 5-6). The Election Commission of India, though not a party to the proceedings, filed an Interim Application (served on the Petitioner) seeking release of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the control units attached thereto; the Court noted prior orders of this and several other Courts releasing EVMs/control units with a direction to the ECI to maintain a paper-trail print-out, directed the Petitioner to file an Affidavit-in-Reply within two weeks, and posted the ECI's Application for hearing and disposal on the next adjourned date (paras 8-10). Application (Lodging) No.24590 of 2025 was listed alongwith Application (Lodging) No.9497 of 2025 on 25.09.2025 at 3:00 p.m., and the Election Petitions were stood over to 06.11.2025 (paras 11-12). No contested issue on merits was decided.