NAYAN PATEL vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Digitally
signed by
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
1


CGHC010192402026 2026:CGHC:4638
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2568 of 2026
Order Reserved on 27.10.2026
Order Delivered on 03.11.2026
1 - Nayan Patel S/o Late Makardhwaj Patel Aged About 53 Years
R/o Ward No. 10, Parsapali @ Lohargaon, Post Singhi, Tahsil And
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 Collector Cum Returning Officer Zila Panchayat, Distt.
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Returning Officer Zila Panchayat Mahasamund, S. Alok, Chief

2
Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Returning Officer Janpad Panchayat Electoral Officer, Krishna
Kumar Sahu, Tahsildar, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
6 - The Presiding Officer Election Booth No. 187 (Nirvachan
Kshetra Kramank 04), Saleem Khan, S/o Shri Hakeem Khan,
Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Birkol, Block
Saraipali, Tehsil Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Hitesh Chandrakar S/o Shri Nayak Ram Chandrakar Aged
About 51 Years R/o Village Khusrupali, Ward No. 10, Block And
Tahsil Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shatrughan Lal Sahu R/o Village
Amakoni, Post Khamhariya, Tahsil Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
9 - Champa Lal Patel S/o Shri Somnath Patel R/o Village
Mararkashibahra, Post Onkarband, Tahsil Bagbahra, Distt.
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
10 - Ishwar Markande S/o Shri Umend Markande R/o Kanharpuri,
Post Koma, Tahsil Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
11 - Khilawan Sahu S/o Tarachand Sahu R/o Village Bhatgaon,
Post Nartora, Tah. And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
12 - Mohit Kumar Diwan S/o Tulsiram Diwan R/o Village Gondpali,
Tah. And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

3
13 - Premlal Ramji Nishad S/o Shri Ramji Nishad R/o Village
Dumarpali, Post Tusda, Tahsil Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
14 - Rishabh Chandrakar S/o Shri Ramesh Chandrakar R/o Village
Post Ghunchapalikala, Tahsil Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
15 - Thalesh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Rikhiram Chandrakar R/o
Village Kurrubhantha, Tahsil Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(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, the returned
candidate for the post of Member of Zila Panchayat,
Mahasamund, has challenged the order dated 22.04.2026
passed by the learned Election Tribunal in Election Petition
No. 08/2025, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC seeking rejection of the election petition on the ground
that neither Respondent No. 7 nor his authorised agent

4
sought recounting of votes on 23.02.2025 in respect of Booth
No. 187, 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, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to set- aside / quash the impugned order
dated 22.04.2026 (Ann P-1) passed by the
Respondent No.02 in case No. 08/2025 "Shri
Hitesh Chandrakar Vs. Nayan Patel and 13
others" (Only relating to U/o. 07 Rule 11 of CPC)
and consequently the trial of Election petition
Dated 10.03.2025 (11.03.2025) (Ann P-5 Colly),
filed by the Respondent No.07 U/s. 122 of the
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993
also be set-aside in the interest of justice.
10.3 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, who was declared
elected as Member of Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, having
secured the highest number of votes in the election held on
23.02.2025, has preferred the present petition challenging the
order dated 22.04.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2, the

5
learned Election Tribunal, in Election Petition No. 08/2025,
whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, was rejected. Respondent No. 7,
Shri Hitesh Chandrakar, challenged the petitioner's election
by filing an election petition under Section 122 of the
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, alleging
irregularities and corrupt practices in the counting and
tabulation of votes at Booth No. 187, falling within Nirvachan
Kshetra No. 04, and seeking recounting of votes in respect of
the said booth. The petitioner, upon receipt of notice, filed his
reply/written statement dated 01.07.2025 along with the
counting slips and result of counting in Form No. 19 under
Rule 77 of the applicable election rules. The Presiding Officer
of Booth No. 187, Shri Saleem Khan, arrayed as Respondent
No. 11 in the election petition and Respondent No. 5 in the
present petition, also filed his reply on 02.09.2025. During the
pendency of the election petition, the petitioner filed an
application dated 07.01.2026 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
contending that the election petition was not maintainable, as
neither Respondent No. 7 nor his authorised agent had
sought recounting of votes on the date of counting, i.e.,
23.02.2025. Respondent No. 7 filed his reply to the said
application on 08.04.2026. However, the learned Election

6
Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 22.04.2026, rejected
the petitioner's application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
has approached this Court challenging the legality and
propriety of the impugned order.
4. Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the impugned order dated 22.04.2026, whereby the
petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC
has been rejected, is contrary to the provisions of the
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submits that
neither Respondent No. 7 nor his authorised agent raised any
objection or sought recounting of votes at the time of counting
on 23.02.2025, as contemplated under Rule 80(1) read with
Rule 80(5) of the Rules of 1995. Despite this, Respondent
No. 7 subsequently filed an election petition seeking
recounting of votes in respect of Booth No. 187. Placing
reliance upon Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu and
Others , (2023) 10 SCC 461 , and 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 contends that the election petition is not maintainable
in the absence of a request for recounting at the appropriate

7
stage. He further submits that the learned Election Tribunal
has failed to consider the aforesaid binding precedents while
rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order
and rejection of the election petition. He also submits that the
election proceedings are continuing without proper framing of
issues and recording of evidence, which is the subject matter
of a separate petition, being WPC No. 454 of 2026, pending
before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. Santhana
Kumar and Others reported in (2024) 18 SCC 592 in support
of his contention that the election petition is not maintainable
in the absence of a request for recounting at the appropriate
stage.
5. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Learned State counsel, appearing on
behalf of the State, submits that the present writ petition has
been filed challenging the order dated 22.04.2026 passed by
the Director, Panchayat, in Election Petition No. 08/2025,
whereby the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been rejected. He
submits that the impugned order is a reasoned order passed
after consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner

8
and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting
interference by this Court. It is further submitted that the
election petition filed by respondent No. 7 under Section 122
of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, alleging
irregularities in the tabulation of votes, is pending
consideration before the competent quasi-judicial authority
and is required to be decided on its own merits in accordance
with law. The petitioner cannot seek to foreclose the statutory
remedy available to the election petitioner merely on the
ground that no application for recounting was made by him or
his authorized agent during the counting process. Learned
State counsel further submits that the State are formal parties
to the present proceedings and do not wish to make any
specific submissions on the merits of the election dispute. The
writ petition being devoid of merit, it deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 7 submits that the impugned order dated
22.04.2026 passed by the Additional Director, Panchayat,
rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is legal and proper and
does not warrant interference by this Court. It is submitted
that, in the election held for the post of Member, Zila

9
Panchayat, respondent No. 7 secured 167 votes, whereas the
petitioner secured 110 votes and another candidate, Khilawan
Sahu, secured 99 votes at Polling Booth No. 187. However,
respondent No. 7 was not declared the returned candidate.
Upon obtaining a certified copy of the tabulation chart on
28.02.2025, respondent No. 7 noticed discrepancies between
the tabulation chart and the calculation chart prepared on
23.02.2025. Consequently, he submitted an application dated
28.02.2025 before the District Election Officer seeking
correction of the errors under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat
Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. Learned counsel further submits
that, by order dated 04.03.2025, the Collector/District Election
Officer acknowledged the discrepancy in the votes reflected in
the relevant records and also noticed overwriting in
Proforma-19 concerning the votes secured by the petitioner
and Khilawan Sahu. The District Election Officer observed
that the discrepancy could be ascertained only by recounting
the ballot papers, which was beyond his authority. It is,
therefore, contended that respondent No. 7 had no occasion
to seek recounting before the Returning Officer during the
counting process, as the discrepancies came to his
knowledge only after obtaining the certified tabulation chart
on 28.02.2025.

10
7. It is further submitted that the Returning Officer, in his reply to
the election petition, has also acknowledged the alleged
tampering in Proforma-19. Learned counsel contends that the
election petition has been filed within the prescribed period
and with proper court fees, and that the petitioner did not
raise the ground regarding the absence of a recounting
application before the Returning Officer in his application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The election petition, therefore,
raises triable issues concerning discrepancies in the
tabulation of votes and alleged irregularities in the election
process, which ought to be adjudicated by the competent
authority on their merits. On the aforesaid grounds, learned
counsel for respondent No. 7 submits that the impugned
order suffers from no illegality or infirmity and prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.
8. The finding should focus on the limited scope of Order VII
Rule 11 CPC, the pleadings in the election petition as a
whole, the specific allegations of discrepancies and alleged
manipulation in the election records, and the fact that the
election petition has already proceeded to the stage of final
hearing. The absence of a request for recounting during
counting, or the District Election Officer’s refusal to order
recounting, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient to reject

11
the election petition at the threshold when the pleadings raise
disputed questions requiring adjudication on evidence.
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. 08/2025.
10. The principal question which arises for consideration in the
present writ petition is whether the learned Election Tribunal
has committed any illegality in rejecting the petitioner's
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the election petition on
the ground that neither respondent No. 7 nor his authorised
agent had 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.
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:—

12
(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 made in the plaint and the
documents relied upon therein, read as a whole. The defence
raised by the defendant, or the disputed questions which may
arise during adjudication, cannot ordinarily be taken into
consideration for determining whether the plaint discloses a
cause of action.

13
13. The aforesaid principle has repeatedly been affirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Saleem Bhai and Others v. State
of Maharashtra and Others , (2003) 1 SCC 557 , the
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 plea taken by the defendant in
the written statement is wholly 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
(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 Supreme

14
Court explained that the question whether a plaint discloses a
cause of action has to 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;
(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

15
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 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

16
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.
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

17
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.
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.

18
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
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

19
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
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

20
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
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. In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, the
question is not whether respondent No. 7 has ultimately
established the allegations made in the election petition or
whether he is entitled to an order for recounting of votes. The
limited inquiry at this stage 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

21
entitlement of respondent No. 7 to the reliefs claimed are
matters to be considered by the Election Tribunal in
accordance with law.
20. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was
declared elected as a Member of Zila Panchayat,
Mahasamund, in the election held on 23.02.2025.
Respondent No. 7, who was one of the contesting
candidates, instituted Election Petition No. 08/2025 under
Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,
1993, challenging the petitioner's election. The election
petition contains allegations of irregularities in the counting
and tabulation of votes at Polling Booth No. 187, falling within
Nirvachan Kshetra No. 04. Respondent No. 7 has alleged that
the petitioner, in connivance with the concerned election
authorities, benefited from discrepancies in the election
records and has sought, inter alia, a declaration that the
petitioner's election is void, recounting of votes polled at the
aforesaid booth and consequential relief in respect of
declaring him to be elected.
21. A perusal of the pleadings, as referred to by the parties,
indicates that respondent No. 7 has not confined his
challenge merely to a general or unsupported assertion that
the counting was incorrect. He has specifically pleaded

22
discrepancies between the calculation chart prepared on
23.02.2025 and the tabulation chart subsequently obtained by
him. According to respondent No. 7, he secured 167 votes at
Polling Booth No. 187, whereas the petitioner secured 110
votes and another contesting candidate, Khilawan Sahu,
secured 99 votes, as reflected in the calculation chart relied
upon by him. He has further pleaded that, upon obtaining a
certified copy of the tabulation chart on 28.02.2025, he
discovered discrepancies in the votes recorded in the
respective documents.
22. Respondent No. 7 has also relied upon his application dated
28.02.2025 submitted before the District Election Officer and
the subsequent order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the
Collector/District Election Officer. According to the pleadings,
the said authority noticed discrepancies between the
calculation chart and the tabulation chart and also referred to
overwriting in Proforma-19 concerning the votes recorded
against the petitioner and Khilawan Sahu. It is further pleaded
that the District Election Officer observed that the discrepancy
could be ascertained by recounting the ballot papers, but that
he was not empowered to undertake such recounting.
23. These allegations and the documents relied upon by
respondent No. 7 form part of the factual foundation of the

23
election dispute. Whether the alleged discrepancies actually
occurred, whether they resulted from any irregularity or
malpractice, and whether they materially affect the election
result are questions that cannot be conclusively determined
merely by examining the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has principally contended
that respondent No. 7 did not seek recounting of votes at the
time of counting on 23.02.2025, either personally or through
his authorised agent, as contemplated under the applicable
election rules. Reliance has been placed upon Rule 80(1)
read with Rule 80(5) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat
Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, as well as the judgments referred to
in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is
argued that, in the absence of a request for recounting at the
prescribed stage, the election petition seeking recounting is
not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
25. The contention requires consideration in the context of the
limited jurisdiction exercised under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The mere fact that no request for recounting was made at the
time of counting does not, by itself, dispense with the
requirement of examining the entire election petition to
determine whether it discloses a cause of action or is ex facie

24
barred by law. Whether the applicable election rules impose a
mandatory requirement in the circumstances pleaded, and
what consequences follow from non-compliance with such a
requirement, must be considered in the context of the
relevant statutory provisions and the specific pleadings in the
election petition.
26. It is also relevant that respondent No. 7 has sought to
explain the absence of an earlier request for recounting by
pleading that the discrepancy became apparent only after he
obtained the certified tabulation chart on 28.02.2025. He
asserts that, before obtaining that document, he was unaware
of the alleged difference between the calculation chart and
the tabulation chart. He further relies upon the order dated
04.03.2025 passed by the District Election Officer, which,
according to him, recorded discrepancies in the relevant
election documents.
27. 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 on the legal sufficiency of the
circumstances pleaded by him. However, these averments
form part of the overall factual narrative set out in the election
petition and cannot be ignored while examining the

25
petitioner's contention that no cause of action whatsoever has
been disclosed.
28. The concept of 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 Order VII Rule 11(a)
CPC, the Court has to determine whether the facts pleaded, if
taken to be true, disclose a legally cognisable basis for
seeking the 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. Conversely, a mere assertion of a
cause of action would not suffice where the pleadings, read
as a whole, disclose no enforceable claim. The decisive
consideration is whether the material facts pleaded disclose a
cause of action requiring adjudication.
29. In the present case, the allegations regarding discrepancies
in the calculation chart and tabulation chart, the alleged
overwriting in Proforma-19, the difference in the votes
recorded against the contesting candidates and the
subsequent proceedings before the District Election Officer
constitute the factual basis of the challenge to the petitioner's
election. These averments, considered collectively, cannot be
treated as wholly irrelevant or incapable of raising an election

26
dispute at the threshold. Their truth and legal effect remain
matters for adjudication by the competent Election Tribunal.
30. The further contention that the District Election Officer had
already considered and rejected the request for recounting
also does not, by itself, establish that the election petition is
liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The
proceedings before the District Election Officer and the
election petition instituted under Section 122 of the
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, are required to
be examined with reference to their respective statutory
foundations, the nature of the relief sought and the applicable
legal provisions. The fact that the District Election Officer did
not undertake recounting, reportedly on the ground of lack of
authority, cannot automatically be equated with a
determination that the election petition itself is barred by law.
31. Whether the earlier proceedings operate as a legal bar to
any part of the relief sought by respondent No. 7 is a question
to be determined with reference to the relevant statutory
provisions and the pleadings. In the present case, the
petitioner has not demonstrated that, merely on the basis of
the alleged absence of a request for recounting during the
counting process and the subsequent order of the District

27
Election Officer, the entire election petition is liable to be
rejected at the threshold.
32. It is equally important to bear in mind that an 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 adjudication of the election petition,
subject to the applicable law.
33. The petitioner's contention that respondent No. 7 did not
seek recounting at the appropriate stage may be a matter
requiring consideration in the election proceedings. However,
the legal consequence of that circumstance must be
determined in the light of the applicable election rules and the
complete pleadings. It cannot be assumed, without such
examination, that the election petition does not disclose any
cause of action at all.
34. Another significant aspect of the matter is that the election
petition was instituted in March 2025 and has proceeded
before the Election Tribunal. As stated by learned counsel for

28
the parties, issues have been framed, evidence has been
recorded and the matter has reached the stage of final
hearing or pronouncement of the decision. The stage of the
proceedings does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, if the statutory
requirements for its allowance are otherwise satisfied.
Nevertheless, the progress of the proceedings reinforces the
need to determine the application on the correct legal test
rather than on a selective reading of one circumstance,
divorced from the remaining pleadings.
35. The question remains whether the election petition, on a
meaningful and holistic reading, discloses a cause of action
or is barred by law. Since respondent No. 7 has pleaded
specific discrepancies in the election records and has relied
upon the subsequent proceedings before the District Election
Officer, the petitioner's objection cannot be accepted merely
by isolating the allegation that no application for recounting
was made on the date of counting.
36. On perusal of the impugned order dated 22.04.2026, it
appears that the learned Election Tribunal considered the
petitioner's objection and declined to reject the election
petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Having regard to the
scope of the said provision and the nature of the allegations

29
contained in the election petition, this Court finds no sufficient
ground to hold that the Election Tribunal committed an error
of law in reaching that conclusion. The petitioner has not
established that the election petition, on its face, fails to
disclose a cause of action or that the entire proceeding is ex
facie barred by law.
37. 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 of malpractice, the correctness
of the disputed election records, the entitlement of respondent
No. 7 to recounting or the ultimate validity of the petitioner's
election. All such questions shall be considered by the
Election Tribunal in accordance with law, on the basis of the
pleadings, evidence and applicable statutory provisions,
without being influenced by any observation in this order on
the merits of the election dispute.
38. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Election Tribunal has not
committed any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting
interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The present writ
petition, filed by the returned candidate challenging the
rejection of his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is

30
accordingly dismissed. The impugned order dated
22.04.2026 passed in Election Petition No. 08/2025 is
affirmed. The Election Tribunal shall proceed to decide the
election petition in accordance with law.
39. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha

31

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.”