Sri Pradeep Vs Sri Narasimhegowda

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 27 OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 16.01.2024 PASSED IN ELECTION PETITION NO.1/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S 21 OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT 1964.

¶21

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶23

CAV JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

¶25

This appeal is filed under Section 27 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 by the appellant-Election Petitioner before the Court below, challenging the judgment dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Prl.Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna in Election Petition No.1/2019.

¶26

The appellant had sought to declare the election of first respondent who was elected as counselor of Ward No.20 of Srirangapatna Town Municipality as null and void. The petition having been dismissed by the trial Court

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

primarily on procedural grounds, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶30

Undisputed facts of the case reveal that, the Municipal Elections to the Srirangapatna Town were held on 29.5.2019. The appellant had contested from Ward No.20 on a Ticket of the Indian National Congress whereas, the first respondent contested on behalf of the Janata Dal (Secular). The counting of the votes was concluded on 31.5.2019 and the first respondent was declared elected having secured 603 votes, when the appellant polled 395 votes. Being aggrieved by the said election of respondent no.1, the appellant filed election petition seeking to nullify the election result by contending that, the nomination of the first respondent was liable to be rejected due to suppression of material facts, and that, his election was vitiated by corrupt practice as defined under the KM, Act, 1964.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The main contention raised by the appellant in

¶34

the election petition was, that the first respondent had failed to disclose in his nomination affidavit complete and accurate information with regard to his criminal

¶35

antecedents, movable and immovable properties and liabilities, thereby, has mislead both the returning officer and the electorate. It was contended that, the first respondent had faced trial in Sessions Case No.46/1999 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandya for the offence under Section 304(1) read with Section 34 of IPC and had been acquitted. About the said disposed case, it is contended that, the respondent ought to have disclosed in col.no.6 of the affidavit but, was not. Further it was alleged that, an FIR in Crime NO.57/2019 dated 19.3.2019

¶36

was registered against the first respondent for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 506, 144

¶37

read with Section 34 of IPC and that this case, being within six months from the date of nomination, was

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

mandatory required to be disclosed in col.7 of affidavit,

¶42

but, respondent no.1 had suppressed the same.

¶43

In addition, the petitioner-appellant produced material to show that, the first respondent owned immovable properties located 2^nd Gumbaz Road, Ganjam, Srirangapatna, specifically bearing No.G962/3597, G3281/962/3597 measuring 64' x 80' ft. which were not declared in col.no.8 of affidavit. He also alleged that, in property No.G/2934/604/2 either fully or partially retained

¶44

by respondent was not disclosed. Moreover, in col.9 regarding liabilities, the first respondent declared only a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from Cauvery Grameen bank however, the petitioner/appellant had produced two copies of mortgage deeds showing, that the respondent no.1 had availed two separate loans i.e., Rs.8 lakhs secured by him equitable mortgage deed dated 14.12.2016 and another crop loan of Rs.3,50,000/- dated 13.8.2014. About these liabilities, it is contended that deliberately respondent no.1

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

has suppressed to mislead electorate and returning officer

¶48

alike.

¶49

Before the trial Court, the first respondent appeared and denied all the allegations and specifically contended that, petition was filed within an oblique motive to harass him despite having been declared validly elected. He contended that, all relevant information had been disclosed in the nomination papers and that the allegations were either false or exaggerated or immaterial to the validity of his election. The respondent admitted having faced trial in Sessions case No.46/1999 but contends that, since he was acquitted, there was no obligation under law to disclose. As to the properties and loans, he contended that either, they were not owned by him or on the date of nomination or were adequately declared. By contending so, it was prayed by the respondent no.1 to dismiss the petition.

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The learned trial Court after framing

¶53

appropriate issues, recorded elaborate evidence from both side. Appellant was examined himself PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P19, the documentary evidence. To rebut

¶54

the evidence of the petitioner, the first respondent entered the witness box as RW1 and also examined two witnesses in the shape of RW.2 and 3 and an officer from CGM and municipal officer respectively and produced documentary evidence marked at Ex.R1 to R14.

¶55

Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court found that, the first respondent had indeed failed to disclose the property bearing no.G962/3597 and G3281/962/3597 in Col.8 of the affidavit despite the fact that property stood in his name. It is further fond that, two loan transactions referred in the mortgage deeds as R9 and R10 were omitted from disclosure in col.9 where respondent mentioned only a liability of 3 lakhs. The learned trial Court also held that, in the light of the decision of this Court in Mudiyappa Vs. Basavaraj @

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Basappa and Others in WP No.107291 of 2023 decided on 10.01.2024 " disposed criminal cases resulting in acquittal are to be disclosed in the nomination affidavit as part of the candidate's obligation to furnish complete information ".

¶59

These findings of the trial Court with the nondisclosure stated supra are not challenged by the respondent by preferring any separate appeal. Despite these adverse findings on merits, the trial Court dismissed the election petition on the ground that, the petition was not maintainable for procedural reasons. It held that, the appellant had failed to file a mandatory affidavit in support of the verification of the pleadings as required under Order VI Rule 15(4) of CPC. The annexure to the application were not attested and certified copies were not furnished to the respondents. It held that, these lapses were not mere irregularities but went to the root of the maintainability of the petition. The trial Court placed reliance on binding precedent of apex Court in Mithilesh

¶60

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Kumar Pandey v. Baidyanath Yadav and Others, AIR 1984 SC 305, Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram and Others, AIR 1974 SC 1185, G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar, (2013) 4 SCC 776 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that, failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements including furnishing a supportive affidavits renders and election petition liable for dismissal at the threshold.

¶63

Having heard the arguments of both side and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court, upon independent consideration of the record and law applicable concurs with the conclusions drawn by the trial Court. There is no doubt that, democratic elections derive legitimacy not only from procedural fairness in voting and counting, but, equally from adherence to constitutional values such as transparency and accountability. The law requires candidates to submit accurate and full disclosure and relating to criminal cases, assets and liabilities not merely for administrative scrutiny but as a recognition of

¶64

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

electorate's right to make an informed choice. The Hon'ble

¶67

Apex Court has time and again held that, non-disclosure or suppression of material facts even if not affecting election result directly, may render a nomination liable for rejection.

¶68

However, it is equally well settled that, an election petition is not a suit under the ordinary civil law. It is a creature of statute and must strictly comply with requirements of law. Sec.21(4)(c) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act mandates that, an election petition must be signed and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Order VI Rule 15(4) CPC further requires that, such verification, must be supported by a duly sworn affidavit. The absence of such an affidavit is not a curable defect. Such procedural lapses are fatal and not saved by the doctrine of substantial compliance. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.253 of 2025 (LB-ELE) between Sri. R. Basavarajappa Vs.

¶69

11 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

State of Karnataka decided on 28.02.2025 in para 5 has observed as under:

¶73

"(5)(1) xxxx

¶74

(2) xxxx

¶75

(3) The petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition where the petitioner in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, the returned candidate.

¶76

(4) A petition under sub-rule (1),-

¶77

(a) shall contain a concise statement of material on which the petitioner relies;

¶78

(b) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings;

¶79

(c) any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition."

¶80

12. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saritha S.

¶81

Nair v. Hibi Eden , reported in (2021) 14 SCC 148 in para 33 and 34 has observed as under:

¶82

12 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

" 33. Section 83(1)(c) mandates that an election petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for verification of pleadings. Signing a petition and verifying the petition are two different aspects. While Order 6 Rule 14 deals with the signing of the petition, Order 6 Rule 15 deals with the verification of pleading. Rule 14 mandates that every pleading shall be signed by the party as well as the pleader, if any. But the proviso carves out an exception by stating that where a party is unable to sign the pleading, by reason of absence or for other good cause, it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. Order 6 Rule 14 reads as follows:

¶86

“ 14. Pleading to be signed .—Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any):

¶87

Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.

¶88

34. Order 6 Rule 15 which speaks about verification of pleadings reads as follows:

¶89

13 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

“ 15. Verification of pleadings .—(1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶93

(2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true.

¶94

(3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed.

¶95

(4) The person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings.”

¶96

In the context of election petition filed under

¶97

the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (in short "KM" Act) the provisions of the CPC, 1908 (CPC) assume significant procedural importance. While the Municipalities Act

¶98

governs the substantive rights and obligations and grounds on which an election may be challenged - such corrupt practices, improper acceptance of nomination or

¶99

14 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

material non-compliance with statutory provisions - it does

¶103

not go itself constitute a complete code of procedure for the trial of such petitions. Consequently, wherever, Municipalities Act is silent of explicitly, mandates procedural compliance' in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, it becomes applicable with all full force and binding effect.

¶104

This position is fortified by Sec.21(4)(c) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, which clearly states that, every election petition must be signed and verified in the manner laid down under CPC for the verification of pleadings. This clause directly incorporates the procedural mechanism of Order VI Rule 15 of CPC. Sub-rule (4) of said provision further mandates, that a person verifying

¶105

the pleadings also furnish an affidavit in support of such pleadings. Therefore, filing of affidavit with rectification is not technical formality but mandatory requirement under law. Non-compliance with this requirement has been consistently held by Apex to be a fatal defect that renders

¶106

15 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

the petition liable for dismissal at the threshold irrespective of substantive merit of the allegations. This principle is laid down in clear terms in Mithilesh Kumar

¶110

Pandey, G.M. Siddeshwar case supra.

¶111

Although the KM Act, 1964 is a special statute intended to regulate elections to municipal bodies, it does not provide an exhaustive procedural framework. Essential components, such as rules on attestation of annexure, furnishing of certified copy to respondent, form of affidavits and method of service of documents are not expressly provided for in the Act. In such circumstances, courts are bound to apply the general procedural law contained in CPC, 1908. This application is not viewed as inconsistent with special statute but rather as a matter of harmonious construction where the special law draws upon the general law to ensure procedural consistently and fairness. Thus, CPC overrides the KM Act procedurally but not by negating its provisions but supplementing areas

¶112

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

where the special Act is silent or refers directly to CPC

¶115

norms.

¶116

The Court have repeatedly emphasized that election law is sui generis and must be strictly interpreted and applied. Given the sanctity attached to democratic elections and public interest involved in maintaining their fairness, the procedural safeguards prescribed under law cannot be diluted or disregarded. Applying these principles to the present case, failure of petitioner to file an affidavit

¶117

in compliance of Order VI Rule 15(4), the omission to attest annexure, failure to annex certified true copies of documents is fatal. They are not minor irregularities but, constitute substantial procedural lapses. The KM Act mandates verification "in the manner of CPC', the noncompliance with CPC procedure results in a petition that is fundamentally defective and cannot be entertained. Therefore, while the petitioner may have demonstrated partial merit in the allegations concerning suppression and

¶118

17 -

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC:26676 MFA No. 1202 of 2024

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

non-disclosure, the election petition itself was liable to be dismissed on account of these procedural violations.

¶122

In conclusion, wherever, the KM Act, 1964 requires or implies the application of procedural norms, the provisions of CPC not only supplement, but also governs the process entirely. The procedural framework provided by the CPC thus, overrides the principles of KM Act in the procedural areas either expressly incorporated or implied by necessity.

¶123

In the case on hand, the finding of suppression, non-disclosure may have laid strong foundation for setting aside the election, had the petition itself not been vitiated by procedural impropriates. While this court is not inclined to disregard the substantive merit of petitioner's grievance, but the law binds this Court to enforce procedural rigor in matters of electoral challenge.

¶124