G MURUGENDRAN Vs. V SATHIAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the applicant, who is the 13th respondent in the main Election Petition, seeking to substitute his name in the place of the original election petitioner.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 10.6.2011, this court directed the second respondent to file a counter. Accordingly, a counter affidavit, dated 28.6.2011 was filed. No counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent. The first respondent filed the election petition to set aside the election made in favour of the second respondent who was elected to the Lok Sabha from Ramanathapuram Constituency. The Election Petition was filed on several grounds of corrupt practice. The said election petition was numbered as E.P.No.1 of 2009. Subsequently, the second respondent filed an application No.6915 of 2009 under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VI Rule 16 of CPC to strike off the election petition filed by the first respondent. The said matter was elaborately argued. This court by an order dated 28.02.2011 (since reported in 2011 (2) CTC 276 [Sivakumar @ J.K.Ritheesh Vs. V.Sathiamoorthy and others) held that the application could not be allowed in its entirety. The allegations relating to citizenship issue, receipt of copy of Compact Disc and Electronic Voting Machines were struck off from the original election petition. In respect of other allegations, it was relegated for proper trial. Therefore, the application was allowed in part and the main matter was directed to be posted for trial.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was stated that no unreasonable adjournments were taken. Based upon reasonable request, the court had adjourned the matter depending upon the situation. Even in the application to strike off the pleadings, arguments were addressed on behalf of the first respondent. The circumstances under which substitution can be ordered is provided in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 itself. It is contemplated under Sections 110 and 112 of the Act that in the event of withdrawal of the election petition or abatement, such substitution is possible. There are no other circumstances provided by which a person could have filed an application for substitution. In the absence of any legal provisions, the plea made by the applicant cannot be permitted. Insofar as the election petition is concerned, it is the private right of an individual concerned. The circumstances under which substitution can be ordered do not arise in the facts of this case. If the applicant is so interested in unseating the second respondent, he himself should have filed an election petition. Hence it is prayed for the dismissal of the application.