Dismissed

Smt. Sabrun Wife of Rahis Khan v. Smt. Sareefan Wife of Janu Khan

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2021CW/755/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application seeking to quash an election petition. The Court held that allegations regarding the number of children of a returned candidate are questions of fact requiring examination, precluding dismissal at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as misconceived; the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was correctly rejected.

Smt. Sabrun Wife of Rahis Khan Vs Smt. Sareefan Wife of Janu… — Election Law | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 2)

¶2

[CW-755/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 755/2021

¶5

Smt. Sabrun Wife Of Rahis Khan, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Thons Panchayat Samiti Tijara, District Alwar.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Sareefan Wife Of Janu Khan, Resident Of Village Berla, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar.

¶9

Smt. Shabnam Wife Of Mubarik, Resident Of Village Berla, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar.

¶10

Returning Officer, Panchayat Elections -2020, Village Panchayat Berla, Panchayat Samiti Tijara, Through - District Election Officer (District Collector), Panchayat Elections - 2020, Alwar.

¶11

District Election Officer (District Collector) Panchayat Elections-2020, Alwar.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶15

Order

¶16

05/04/2021

¶17

The writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 12.01.2021, whereby an application moved by the petitioner who is respondent in the election petition, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election petition filed by the respondent is vexatious and with the purpose to harass the petitioner. The election petition filed by the respondent contains wrongful facts and mentions at one place that the petitioner has six children while in other cases different

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CW-755/2021]

¶21

number of children have been alleged whereas the petitioner has only two children.

¶22

In view thereof, the election petition ought to have been dismissed and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ought to have been allowed.

¶23

I have considered the submissions and find that question whether the petitioner as a returned candidate, has one child or two children or more than two children, is a question of fact which requires to be examined.

¶24

In such circumstances, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC could not have been allowed and the learned Judge has rightly rejected the application vide order dated 12.01.2021.

¶25

No interference is warranted. The writ petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶27

Pcg/79

Smt. Sabrun Wife of Rahis Khan v. Smt. Sareefan Wife of Janu Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sabrun Wife of Rahis Khan v. Smt. Sareefan Wife of Janu Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bureau of Indian Standard Vs Ajay Singh Rawat Son of Shri Ram Singh Rawat

Rakshpal Nayak S/O Shri Bhagga Ram Nayak Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Jitendra Yadav S/O Banwari Lal Yadav Vs Union of India

Ajay Kumar Son of Shri Mangal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Akriti Landcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Sunrise Stone Company Vs State of Rajasthan