RAGANI DEVI Vs. DEEPA SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jeevanjee Srivastava, learned counsel for the election petitioner- respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the contesting respondents.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order passed by the Election Tribunal 13/2/2024 rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. He has also challenged the order dtd. 24/8/2023, whereby impleadment application of the petitioner seeking impleadment of all the contesting candidates of the election concerned, has been sought to be impleaded.

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the laws and rules relating to the election disputes have to be strictly construed and any petition under the wrong provision of law if filed should have been thrown at the very threshold. It is submitted that the election petition was entertainable only under Sec. 20 whereas under absolutely a wrong provision i.e. Sec. 43 the election petition was permitted and the same had been entertained.