URMILA Vs. STATE OF U P AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the office report dated 6.4.2018, service of notice on respondent nos. 7, 9, 10 and 11 is deemed sufficient. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the aforesaid respondents.

(2.) Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Pandey, counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Shahanshah Khan, counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 8. The counsel for the parties have also filed their written arguments which are part of the records of the case.

(3.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging a remand order passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as, 'Revisional Court') in Civil Revision No. 48 of 2017 whereby the revisional court has remanded back Election Petition No. 1 of 2015-16, filed by respondent no. 6, to the Prescribed Authority for passing fresh orders in accordance with law. The grounds on which the remand order has been challenged are that the election petition was liable to be dismissed at the very threshold because of improper presentation and also on the ground that the Election Petition was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, 'CPC') and thus the revisional court ought to have dismissed Revision no. 48 of 2017 as well as Election Petition No. 1 of 2015-16.