ROHITESWAR SAIKIA Vs. TANU KONWAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Rohiteswar Saika filed Election Petition No. 5 of 1988 making the Returning Officer as respondent 2, the Chief Electoral Officer as respondent 3, the Chief Election Commissioner as respondent 4 and the Secretary Election Commission as respondent 5. Before filing their written statements, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have made applications for striking out their names on the ground that they have been improperly impleaded in the election petition.

(2.) Mr. B.K. Das, the learned counsel for the election petitioner, has submitted that the petitions are not maintainable at this stage. The respondent 2 to 5 may raise the question of misjoinder at the time of framing issues after putting in their written statements.

(3.) Under section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, for short "the Act" it is, provided that subject to the previsions of the Act and of any rules framed thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits. Under Order 1, Rule 10 (2), Code of Civil Procedure the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out. Provisions under Order 1, Rule 10(2) is not repugnant to any of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the petitions are maintainable under Order 1, Rule 10 (2), CPC.