JAGESHWAR JUGANU CHANDRAKAR vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010199252026 2026:CGHC:46384
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
AFR
Digitally signed
by VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2578 of 2026
Order Reserved on 27.10.2026
Order Delivered on 03.11.2026
1 - Jageshwar Juganu Chandrakar S/o Shri Nandkumar
Chandrakar Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 29, Bhalesar
Road, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Director Directorate Panchayat, New Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Additional Director Directorate Panchayat, New Mantralaya,
Mahaadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur,

2
Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Collector Cum District Electoral Officer Zila Panchayat,
Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Returning Officer Zila Panchayat Mahasamund, Sachchidanand
Alok, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
6 - The Counting And Tabulation Officer Krishna Kumar Sahu,
Tahsildar, Mahasaumund Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Prem Chandrakar S/o Shri Bihari Lal Chandrakar Aged About
52 Years R/o Village Nandgaon, Post Belsoda, Tahsil And Distt.
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Amit Chandrakar Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Bakma,
Ward No. 02, Post Dhansuli, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
9 - Ashish Chandrakar Aged About 32 Years, R/ovillage Bakma
Ward No. 01, Post Dhansuli, Tehsil And Distt. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
10 - Bhojram Sahu Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village And Post
Sher, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
11 - Bhupendra Patel Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Pirda, Post
Tumgaon, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
12 - Chamman Lal Chandrakar Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village

3
And Post Belsonda, Ward No. 11, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
13 - Chandraprakash Dhidhi Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village And
Post Bhoring, P.S. Tumgaon, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
14 - Chandrahas Chandrakar Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village
And Post Bemcha, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
15 - Gaukaran Sahu Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village And Post
Machewa, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
16 - Hemant Kumar Sahu (Prasad) Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Village Barondabazar, Post Bamhni, Tahsil And Distt.
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
17 - Jabbar Singh Chandrakar Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village
Kharora, Post Bemcha, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
18 - Lekhram Joshi Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village And Post
Khatti, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
19 - Sachin Gayakwad Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village
Barondabazar, Post Bamhni, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
20 - Yatendra Sahu Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village And Post
Birkoni, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents

4
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner :- Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate
For State :- Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.
For Respondent No.7 :- Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
CAV Order
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner, being the
returned candidate, has challenged the order dated
22.04.2026 passed in Election Petition No. 06/2025, whereby
his application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151
CPC seeking rejection of the election petition filed by
respondent No. 7 under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh
Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, has been rejected.
2. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-
“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records of the case
from the authorities concerned for its kind
perusal.
10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to set-aside / quash the impugned order Dt.
22.04.2026 (ANN P-1 relevant internal page No.
41) passed by the office of the Respondent
No.02 under the signature of Respondent No.03,
in case No. 06/2025 "Prem Chandrakar Vs.

5
Jageshwar Juganu Chandrakar and 17 others"
and allow the application filed by the Petitioner /
Return candidate U/o. 07 Rule 11 R/w. Section
151 of CPC before the Respondent No.02, in the
interest of justice.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to set- aside the proceedings pending
before the Respondent No.02 vide Case No.
06/2025 "Prem Chandrakar Vs. Jageshwar
Juganu Chandrakar and 17 others" in view of the
dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
(Supra), in the interest of justice.
10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to pass any other relief, which this
Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper be also
awarded.”
3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner, being the returned
candidate, has challenged the order dated 22.04.2026
passed by respondent No. 2 in Election Petition No. 06/2025,
Prem Chandrakar v. Jageshwar Juganu Chandrakar and 17
Others , whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11 read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
seeking rejection of the election petition filed by respondent
No. 7 under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj
Adhiniyam, 1993, was rejected. The election for the post of
District Development Councilor (DDC) for Election Area No.
01, District Mahasamund, was held on 23.02.2025. The

6
petitioner contested the election and was declared elected on
25.02.2025, having secured the highest number of votes.
Respondent No. 7, Prem Chandrakar, subsequently filed an
election petition on 10.03.2025 under Section 122 of the
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, seeking
recounting of votes polled at Booth No. 80. During the
pendency of the election petition, the petitioner filed his reply
on 23.07.2025. Thereafter, on 07.01.2026, he moved an
application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151
CPC, contending that the election petition was not
maintainable because respondent No. 7 had not pleaded that
he had made an application for recounting of votes before the
Election Booth Officer at Booth No. 80 at the time of counting.
According to the petitioner, such a pleading was a statutory
requirement for maintaining an election petition seeking
recounting of votes. Respondent No. 7 filed his reply
opposing the application, and the petitioner also advanced
written arguments on 15.04.2026 in support of his objection.
The petitioner further contends that respondent No. 7 had
alleged tampering with the counting and tabulation of votes at
Booth No. 80, involving 261 votes. Respondent No. 7 had
also submitted an application for recounting before the
Returning Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund (respondent

7
No. 5), on 04.03.2025. The said application was rejected by
order dated 05.03.2025. The relevant counting slips and
tabulation chart have been placed on record. By the
impugned order dated 22.04.2026, respondent No. 2 rejected
the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 read with
Section 151 CPC. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has
approached this Court, contending that the election petition
ought to have been rejected at the threshold for want of the
requisite pleading regarding an application for recounting
before the Election Booth Officer at the time of counting.
4. Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the impugned order dated 22.04.2026, passed by
respondent No. 2 in Election Petition No. 06/2025, is contrary
to law, as the election petition filed by respondent No. 7 under
Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,
1993, does not contain the necessary pleading that an
application for recounting of votes was made before the
Election Booth Officer, Booth No. 80, at the time of counting.
It is contended that, in the absence of such a material
pleading, the election petition seeking recounting of votes
was not maintainable and the application filed by the
petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ought to have been

8
allowed. Learned counsel further submits that Rule 80(1) and
Rule 80(5) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam,
1995, prescribe the procedure for seeking recounting of votes
and provide that no application for recounting shall be
entertained after completion of the prescribed process of
counting and preparation of the result sheet, subject to the
proviso to sub-rule (5). In the present case, the election result
was declared on 25.02.2025, whereas the election petition
was filed on 10.03.2025. It is, therefore, contended that the
failure to comply with the prescribed procedure renders the
election petition seeking recounting of votes unsustainable.
5. Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu and Others ,
(2023) 10 SCC 461, and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A.
Santhana Kumar and Others , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 573 ,
as well as the decision of this Court in Smt. Ishwari
Surendra Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others ,
WPC No. 2888 of 2020 , decided on 28.09.2021, which was
affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 312 of 2021, learned counsel
argues that the requirement of seeking recounting in
accordance with the prescribed procedure cannot be
dispensed with. It is further submitted that the Election
Tribunal proceeded with the election petition without properly

9
addressing the objection regarding maintainability and without
framing any necessary additional issue or affording an
adequate opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence on
the allegations of alleged manipulation of votes at Booth No.
80. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel submits that
the impugned order rejecting the application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC is unsustainable in law and prays that the same
be set aside and the election petition filed by respondent No.
7 be rejected.
6. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned State counsel, appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submits that the present writ
petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. It is contended
that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.04.2026
passed by the Director, Panchayat, in the pending election
proceedings, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the
election petition filed under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh
Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, has been rejected. Learned
State counsel further submits that the impugned order is a
reasoned order passed by the competent quasi-judicial
authority after considering the objections raised by the
petitioner, and no illegality or infirmity warranting interference
by this Court has been demonstrated. It is contended that the

10
election petition is still pending consideration before the
competent authority and is required to be decided on its own
merits and in accordance with law. It is further submitted that
the State is a formal party to the present proceedings and has
no specific role in the adjudication of the dispute between the
petitioner and the election petitioner. The State does not wish
to make any specific submissions on the merits of the
pending election proceedings and leaves the matter to be
decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.
On the aforesaid grounds, learned State counsel submits that
the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be
dismissed.
7. Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent No.
7 submits that the present writ petition is misconceived and
devoid of merit, as the petitioner has failed to make out any
ground warranting interference with the impugned order dated
22.04.2026, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
seeking rejection of the election petition, has been dismissed.
Learned counsel further submits that the election for the post
of Member, Zila Panchayat, Election Area No. 01, District
Mahasamund, was held on 23.02.2025, and counting of votes
was undertaken at the respective polling booths on the same

11
day. However, when the tabulation was carried out on
25.02.2025, respondent No. 7 noticed that, as per the figures
displayed on the computer screen, he had secured 9,149
votes, whereas the petitioner had secured 9,046 votes.
Despite this, the petitioner was declared elected. Respondent
No. 7, therefore, submitted an application dated 04.03.2025
before the Collector, District Mahasamund, seeking correction
of the alleged clerical and computational errors in the
tabulation. It is contended that, upon examination of the
relevant records, discrepancies and alleged overwriting in the
counting and tabulation documents came to light. In
particular, at Booth No. 80, the figure of 161 votes was
allegedly altered to 261 in Proforma-19, Part I. Similarly, at
Booth No. 79, the figure of 123 was allegedly altered to 173 in
the calculation chart; at Booth No. 82, the serial numbers and
votes recorded against the petitioner and another candidate,
Lekhram, were allegedly interchanged; and at Booth No. 55,
Sachin Gayakwad's votes were allegedly recorded as 46 in
the tabulation despite the calculation chart reflecting 216
votes. Learned counsel submits that these discrepancies
materially affected the election result, wherein the petitioner
was declared elected by a margin of 31 votes over
respondent No. 7.

12
8. Learned counsel further submits that the Collector, by order
dated 05.03.2025, declined to undertake recounting on the
ground that the authority to open the ballot papers and
recount the votes was not vested in him under the applicable
provisions. It is, therefore, contended that the application
submitted before the Collector was for correction of alleged
clerical and computational errors and not an application for
recounting as such. Respondent No. 7 subsequently sought
recounting in the election petition after the alleged
discrepancies came to light. Consequently, the question of res
judicata does not arise, as the Collector had declined to
undertake recounting for want of jurisdiction. It is also
contended that the objection regarding the absence of a
pleading that an application for recounting had been made
before the Election Booth Officer at the time of counting was
not raised in the manner now sought to be urged by the
petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot
rely upon a ground allegedly not raised before the Election
Tribunal to contend that the Tribunal failed to consider it. The
allegations concerning discrepancies in the counting and
tabulation records raise issues requiring adjudication in the
pending election petition and cannot, according to learned
counsel, be summarily rejected at the threshold under Order

13
VII Rule 11 CPC. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel
for respondent No. 7 submits that the impugned order does
not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this
Court and prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, including the impugned order
dated 22.04.2026 passed by the learned Election Tribunal in
Election Petition No. 06/2025.
10. The principal question that arises for consideration in the
present writ petition is whether the learned Election Tribunal
has committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in rejecting
the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
rejection of the election petition filed by respondent No. 7
under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj
Adhiniyam, 1993, primarily on the ground that respondent No.
7 had neither personally nor through his authorised agent
sought recounting of votes at the time of counting on
23.02.2025 and as such no cause of action arose for filing
election petition in which one of the relief sought is in respect
of recounting of votes.

14
11. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the relevant provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under:
“Order VII Rule 11—Rejection of plaint
The plaint shall be rejected in the following
cases:—
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of
action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued,
and the plaintiff, on being required by the
Court to correct the valuation within a time to
be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly
valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper
insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to supply the
requisite stamp-paper within a time to be
fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the
statement in the plaint to be barred by any
law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the
provisions of Rule 9.”
12. The settled position of law is that, while considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is
required to examine the averments contained in the plaint or

15
election petition, read as a whole, along with the documents
forming part thereof, insofar as permissible under law. The
defence raised by the opposite party and disputed questions
requiring appreciation of evidence ordinarily cannot be taken
into consideration for deciding whether the pleadings disclose
a cause of action. Similarly, where rejection is sought on the
ground that the proceeding is barred by law, such bar must be
apparent from the statements contained in the pleadings
themselves.
13. In Saleem Bhai and Others v. State of Maharashtra and
Others , (2003) 1 SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that, for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
the relevant averments are those contained in the plaint, and
the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are
immaterial at that stage.
14. In the matter of Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh and Others
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2240 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as under:-
“15. Before we assess the correctness of the
impugned orders, we must remind ourselves of
the basic principles governing rejection of a
plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Here, the
defendants seek rejection of plaint under clause
(d) of Rule 11 (i.e., suit barred by law). Clause

16
(d) makes it clear that while considering
rejection of the plaint thereunder only the
averments made in the plaint and nothing else
is to be considered to find out whether the suit
is barred by law. At this stage, the defense is
not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit is
barred by any law or not is to be determined on
the basis of averments made in the plaint.”
15. Similarly, in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of
India Staff Association , (2005) 7 SCC 510 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court explained that the question whether a plaint
discloses a cause of action must be determined by examining
the plaint as a whole and not by isolating particular
statements from their context. The Court is required to
ascertain whether the material facts pleaded, if taken to be
true for the purpose of the application, disclose a cause of
action warranting adjudication.
16. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kimneo
Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan and Others 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2548 has held as under:-
“6. Section 83 of the RPA is reproduced
below:
“(1) An election petition—
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the
material facts on which the petitioner relies;

17
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any
corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges,
including as full a statement as possible of
the names of the parties alleged to have
committed such corrupt practice and the
date and place of the commission of each
such practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and
verified in the manner laid down in the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the
verification of pleadings:
Provided that where the petitioner alleges
any corrupt practice, the petition shall also
be accompanied by an affidavit in the
prescribed form in support of the allegation
of such corrupt practice and the particulars
thereof.
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition
shall also be signed by the petitioner and
verified in the same manner as the petition.”
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the section shows that an
Election Petition should, inter alia, contain a
concise statement of material facts and
particulars of any corrupt practices which is
alleged against the returned candidate, etc.
Further, the Proviso to Section 83(1) of the
Act requires that the Election Petition shall
also be accompanied by an affidavit in

18
prescribed form to support the allegations of
corrupt practices.
7. Over the years, Election Petitions have
been filed invariably on the grounds which
are similar to the ones raised before this
Court.
The only question is whether the Court
can dismiss such a petition at the very
threshold on an application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC or that the petition needs a
detailed consideration by the Court. The
answer to this will depend upon what kind
of statutory compliances have been made
in the Election Petition.
The case of the present appellant
before this Court is that if the provisions as
referred above, wherein material details
have to be given by the respondent and
particularly the details of corrupt practices
etc., has to be strictly construed and any
deviation by the respondent on this
requirement shall make the petition liable to
be dismissed at the very threshold.
All the same, this is not what is the
requirement of law. Rather the settled
position of law here is that an Election
Petition should not be rejected at the very
threshold where there is a “substantial
compliance” of the provisions.

19
12. In view of the reasons stated above, we
see no reason to interfere with the finding of
the High Court of Manipur that the Election
Petition discloses a cause of action and that
there is substantial compliance of the
requirements provided under provisions of
RPA and thus the petition cannot be
dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”
17. In (2018) 14 SCC 1 Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju v.
Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy and Others , it has
been held as under:-
“38. It is well settled that the election petition
will have to be read as a whole and cannot be
dissected sentence-wise or paragraph-wise to
rule that the same does not disclose a cause of
action. Cause of action embodies a bundle of
facts which may be necessary for the plaintiffs
to prove in order to get a relief from the Court.
The reliefs claimed by the appellant are
founded on grounds inter alia ascribable to
Section 100(1)(d)(i). Further relief has been
claimed to declare the appellant as having
been elected under Section 101 of the 1951
Act. The cause of action for filing the election
petition, therefore, was perceptibly in reference
to the material facts depicting that the
nomination form of Respondent 1 was
improperly accepted by the Returning Officer.

20
45. In Kuldeep Singh Pathania [Kuldeep Singh
Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal, (2017) 5 SCC
345 : (2017) 3 SCC (Civ) 147] , the decision
[Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh
Jaryal, 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5911] of the High
Court which is similar to the one under
consideration (namely, the impugned judgment)
had accepted the explanation offered by the
respondents and meticulously dealt with it to
conclude that the petition did not disclose any
cause of action since it lacked material facts.
The High Court passed that order purportedly
in exercise of power under Order 14 Rule 2.
This Court pointed out the distinction between
an order under Order 7 Rule 11 to reject the
election petition in limine for non-disclosure of
cause of action and an order under Order 14
Rule 2 for disposal of the petition on a
preliminary issue. In that case, the order
passed by the High Court was relatable only to
Order 7 Rule 11. This Court adverted to the
decisions in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V.
Fortune Express [Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel
M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100] and
Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh
[Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh, (2007)
3 SCC 617] , and explicated that under Order 7
Rule 11(a), only the pleadings of the plaintiff-
petitioner can be looked at as a threshold
issue. Whereas, entire pleadings of both sides
can be looked into for considering the

21
preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2.
Neither the written statement nor the
averments or case pleaded by the opposite
party can be taken into account for answering
the threshold issue for rejection of election
petition in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the
Act.”
18. In (2015) 1 SCC 129 Ashraf Kokkur v. K.V. Abdul Khader
and Others , it has been held as under:-
“21. The pleadings, if taken as a whole, would
clearly show that they constitute the material
facts so as to pose a triable issue as to whether
the first respondent is disqualified to contest
election to the Kerala State Legislative
Assembly while holding an office of profit under
the State Government as Chairperson of the
Kerala State Wakf Board. The question is not
whether the Chairperson of the Kerala State
Wakf Board is an office of profit or not. That is
the issue to be tried. The question is whether
the petitioner has raised such a question in the
election petition. The disqualification under the
Constitution of India being, holding an office of
profit under the State Government. The
petitioner has furnished all the material
particulars in that regard. Therefore, the petition
discloses a cause of action.
22. After all, the inquiry under Order 7 Rule
11(a) CPC is only as to whether the facts as

22
pleaded disclose a cause of action and not
complete cause of action. The limited inquiry is
only to see whether the petition should be
thrown out at the threshold. In an election
petition, the requirement under Section 83 of
the RP Act is to provide a precise and concise
statement of material facts. The expression
“material facts” plainly means facts pertaining to
the subject-matter and which are relied on by
the election petitioner. If the party does not
prove those facts, he fails at the trial [see
Philipps v. Philipps [(1878) LR 4 QBD 127 (CA)]
(QBD p. 133); Mohan Rawale v. Damodar
Tatyaba [(1994) 2 SCC 392] (SCC p. 399, para
16)].
27. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune
Express [(2006) 3 SCC 100] , this Court at para
12 held that : (SCC p. 115)
“12. … The court has to read the entire plaint as
a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause
of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be
rejected by the court exercising the powers
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially,
whether the plaint discloses a cause of action,
is a question of fact which has to be gathered
on the basis of the averments made in the plaint
in its entirety taking those averments to be
correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts
which are required to be proved for obtaining
relief and for the said purpose, the material

23
facts are required to be stated but not the
evidence except in certain cases where the
pleadings relied on are in regard to
misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue
influence or of the same nature. So long as the
plaint discloses some cause of action which
requires determination by the court, the mere
fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff
may not succeed cannot be a ground for
rejection of the plaint.”
19. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, the
question at this stage is not whether respondent No. 7 has
conclusively established the allegations concerning
discrepancies in the counting and tabulation of votes or
whether he is ultimately entitled to an order of recounting. The
limited inquiry is whether the averments contained in the
election petition, taken as a whole and assumed to be true for
the purpose of deciding the application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC, disclose a cause of action or whether the election
petition is ex facie barred by law. The merits of the
allegations, their evidentiary value and the entitlement of
respondent No. 7 to the reliefs claimed are matters to be
adjudicated by the Election Tribunal in accordance with law.
20. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the election for
the post of Member, Zila Panchayat, Election Area No. 01,

24
District Mahasamund, was held on 23.02.2025 and that the
petitioner was declared elected on 25.02.2025. Respondent
No. 7, who was also a contesting candidate, instituted an
election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh
Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, challenging the election
result and seeking, inter alia, recounting of votes on the
ground of alleged discrepancies in the counting and
tabulation records.
21. The case set up by respondent No. 7 is that the counting of
ballot papers at the respective polling booths took place on
23.02.2025, whereas the tabulation of votes was carried out
on 25.02.2025. According to respondent No. 7, when the
figures were displayed on the computer screen during
tabulation, he noticed that his total votes were shown as
9,149, whereas the petitioner's votes were shown as 9,046.
Despite the figures allegedly displayed, the petitioner was
declared elected. Respondent No. 7 has accordingly pleaded
that he subsequently approached the Collector, District
Mahasamund, by an application dated 04.03.2025, seeking
correction of the alleged clerical and computational errors in
the election records.
22. Respondent No. 7 has further relied upon the order dated
05.03.2025 passed by the Collector and has alleged that,

25
during examination of the relevant records, discrepancies in
the calculation charts and tabulation documents came to light.
In particular, it is alleged that, in Proforma-19, Part I,
pertaining to Booth No. 80, the figure of 161 votes recorded
against the petitioner was altered to 261. It is further alleged
that, in the calculation chart pertaining to Booth No. 79, the
figure of 123 was altered to 173 without any initial or
authentication. With respect to Booth No. 82, respondent No.
7 alleges that the serial numbers and votes recorded against
the petitioner and another candidate, Lekhram, were
interchanged, resulting in 10 votes being attributed to
Lekhram and 144 votes being attributed to the petitioner. It
has also been alleged that, in the case of Booth No. 55, the
calculation chart reflected 216 votes in favour of Sachin
Gayakwad, whereas the tabulation allegedly recorded only 46
votes.
23. The aforesaid allegations constitute the factual foundation of
the election dispute raised by respondent No. 7. Whether the
discrepancies actually occurred, whether they resulted from
inadvertent clerical errors or any other irregularity, whether
the relevant documents were altered, and whether such
discrepancies materially affected the election result are
matters requiring examination of the original election records

26
and such evidence as may be adduced by the parties. These
questions cannot ordinarily be conclusively determined while
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
unless the election petition is otherwise liable to rejection on a
ground expressly contemplated under the said provision.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has principally contended
that respondent No. 7 did not make any application for
recounting of votes before the Election Booth Officer at Booth
No. 80 at the time of counting on 23.02.2025. It is argued
that, in view of Rule 80(1) read with Rule 80(5) of the
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, a request
for recounting was required to be made at the prescribed
stage and that, in the absence of such a request, the
subsequent election petition seeking recounting is not
maintainable.
25. Rule 80 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam,
1995, provides the procedure governing recounting of votes.
Sub-rule (5) stipulates that, after the total number of votes
polled by each candidate has been announced and the result
sheet has been completed and signed, no application for
recounting shall be entertained thereafter, subject to the
proviso contained therein. The requirement of following the
prescribed election procedure is undoubtedly a relevant

27
consideration while examining a challenge seeking recounting
of votes. However, the legal consequence of the alleged non-
compliance must be determined with reference to the precise
statutory provision, the nature of the election dispute and the
material averments contained in the election petition.
26. In this context, the distinction between the absence of a
request for recounting at the time of counting and the
subsequent discovery of an alleged discrepancy in the
election records assumes relevance to the case pleaded by
respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 7 asserts that he did not
seek recounting at the time of counting because the
discrepancy relied upon by him became apparent during the
subsequent tabulation process. He claims that the figures
displayed during tabulation did not correspond with the
figures reflected in the relevant calculation charts and that he
approached the Collector on 04.03.2025 after noticing the
alleged discrepancy.
27. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 has further submitted
that the application dated 04.03.2025 was not an application
seeking recounting of votes as such, but was made for
correction of the alleged clerical and computational errors in
the tabulation. According to him, the Collector, by order dated
05.03.2025, declined to undertake recounting on the ground

28
that he lacked the requisite authority to open the ballot papers
and recount the votes. It is contended that respondent No. 7
thereafter approached the Election Tribunal under Section
122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993,
seeking appropriate relief in respect of the alleged
discrepancies.
28. At this stage, this Court is not required to record any final
finding on the correctness of the explanation offered by
respondent No. 7 or to determine whether the circumstances
pleaded by him legally justify a departure from the procedure
prescribed under Rule 80 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat
Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. Equally, this Court is not required to
determine whether the order passed by the Collector
operates as a bar to any relief sought in the election petition.
These questions must be examined in the light of the relevant
statutory provisions, the complete pleadings and the
applicable legal principles. For the limited purpose of the
present application, however, the explanation forms part of
the factual narrative pleaded by respondent No. 7 and cannot
be ignored merely because the petitioner disputes its legal
sufficiency.
29. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
election petition is not maintainable in the absence of a

29
pleading regarding an application for recounting at Booth No.
80 must, therefore, be considered in the context of the entire
election petition. The question under Order VII Rule 11(a)
CPC is whether the material facts pleaded disclose a cause
of action. A cause of action comprises the bundle of material
facts which a party is required to establish to obtain the relief
claimed. For the purpose of the aforesaid provision, the Court
must determine whether the pleaded facts, if taken to be true,
disclose a legally cognisable basis for seeking relief. It is not
necessary at this preliminary stage for the election petitioner
to establish the truth of every allegation or to demonstrate
that the relief sought must ultimately be granted.
30. In the present case, respondent No. 7 has relied upon
specific alleged discrepancies in the calculation charts and
tabulation records pertaining to Booth Nos. 55, 79, 80 and 82.
He has also relied upon his application dated 04.03.2025
submitted before the Collector and the subsequent order
dated 05.03.2025. These allegations, considered collectively,
constitute the factual basis of the challenge to the election
result. Whether the discrepancies are genuine, whether they
can be attributed to any irregularity in the counting or
tabulation process, and whether they materially affected the

30
result are questions that require adjudication on the basis of
the relevant records and evidence.
31. It is equally important to note that the application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be converted into a proceeding
for adjudicating the disputed merits of the election petition.
The Court, while exercising jurisdiction under the said
provision, is not required to weigh the competing versions of
the parties, assess the evidentiary value of the election
records or determine whether the allegations of manipulation
and discrepancies have been proved. Those matters fall
within the domain of the Election Tribunal, subject to the
applicable statutory provisions and the principles governing
election disputes.
32. The petitioner has also relied upon Rule 80(5) of the
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, to contend
that no application for recounting could be entertained after
completion of the prescribed process of counting and
preparation of the result sheet. The provision and the
judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner
are relevant to the ultimate determination of the legality of the
relief claimed by respondent No. 7. Nevertheless, for the
purpose of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, it must be established that the election petition, on a

31
meaningful reading of its averments, is barred by law. The
mere assertion that no request for recounting was made at
the time of counting does not dispense with the requirement
of examining the complete pleadings and determining
whether the statutory bar is apparent from the election
petition itself.
33. In this regard, the decision in Smt. Ishwari Surendra
Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others , WPC No.
2888 of 2020 , affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 312 of 2021, as
relied upon by the petitioner, must be considered in the
context of the statutory provisions and the factual
circumstances governing the present dispute. The
applicability and effect of the aforesaid decision, as well as
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by
the petitioner, are matters for consideration by the Election
Tribunal while adjudicating the election petition. At this stage,
this Court is concerned only with the legality of the order
rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and is
not called upon to decide the election petition itself.
34. The further contention concerning the order dated
05.03.2025 passed by the Collector also does not, by itself,
establish that the election petition is liable to be rejected at
the threshold. According to respondent No. 7, the Collector

32
declined to undertake recounting on the ground of lack of
authority and did not adjudicate the election dispute on its
merits. Whether the said order has any legal consequence for
the proceedings instituted under Section 122 of the
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and whether
any principle of res judicata or other legal bar is attracted are
questions to be examined with reference to the nature of the
earlier proceedings, the jurisdiction exercised therein and the
reliefs sought in the election petition. On the material placed
before this Court, the petitioner has not established that the
order of the Collector, by itself, renders the entire election
petition ex facie barred by law.
35. On perusal of the impugned order dated 22.04.2026, it
appears that the learned Election Tribunal rejected the
petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and
declined to terminate the election proceedings at the
threshold. Having regard to the scope of the said provision
and the nature of the allegations raised by respondent No. 7,
this Court finds no sufficient ground to hold that the Election
Tribunal committed an error of law or exceeded its jurisdiction
in rejecting the application. The petitioner has not
demonstrated that the election petition, on its face and upon a
meaningful reading of its pleadings, fails to disclose a cause

33
of action or is wholly barred by law so as to warrant its
rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
36. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined
to the question of rejection of the election petition under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC. This Court has not expressed any opinion
on the truth of the allegations concerning discrepancies or
alleged tampering in the election records, the correctness of
the tabulation, the entitlement of respondent No. 7 to
recounting, or the ultimate validity of the petitioner's election.
The Election Tribunal shall consider all such questions
independently, in accordance with law, on the basis of the
pleadings, evidence and applicable statutory provisions,
without being influenced by any observation made in this
order on the merits of the election dispute.
37. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish
any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order
dated 22.04.2026 warranting interference in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . The
impugned order dated 22.04.2026 passed by the learned
Election Tribunal in Election Petition No. 06/2025 is affirmed.
The Election Tribunal shall proceed to decide the election
petition in accordance with law.

34
38. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha

35

HEAD-NOTE
“At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, an election
petition must be read as a whole, confining to its
pleadings, to see if cause of action is disclosed.
Allegations of discrepancy in vote tabulation and
manipulation of election records disclose triable
issues and cannot be rejected merely for not
seeking recount at the time of counting; the same
are to be adjudicated by the Tribunal on merits.”