Mukesh Tatwal vs Mahesh Kumar Parmar

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 24-03-2026

<div> NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7884 1 CR-284-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI th ON THE 24 OF MARCH, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 284 of 2026 MUKESH TATWAL Versus MAHESH KUMAR PARMAR AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Murari Lal Pathak - Advocate for the applicant. Shri Kushagra Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.5 / State. ORDER This Civil Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'CPC') has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19/02/2026 passed by Principal District Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) in Election Petition No.02/2022 on an application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by the non-applicant No.1 before the Court below / petitioner herein. Learned trial Court has dismissed the aforesaid application. 2. Brief facts of the case are that under Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'Act of 1956'), Mayor-in-Council and other Counsellors were elected by the elections held on 17/07/2022. Applicant herein has filed his nomination from the political party Bharatiya Janata Party and respondent No.1 herein was contesting candidate from Indian National Congress. Other candidates were also Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 3/25/2026 6:24:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7884 2 CR-284-2026 contesting from other parties wherein present applicant was declared elected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that being aggrieved by the election process, Election Petition No.02/2022 was filed, wherein an application under Order VII Rule 11 of IPC i.e. I.A.No.02/2022 was filed for rejecting the Election Petition on the ground that it is against the provisions of Section 441 of Act of 1956 and Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'Rules of 1994'). Sub Rule 62, 69 and 72 of the Rules of 1994 have been violated. No substantive statement or documents have been filed to make out any cause of action. Verification under Order VI Rule 15 of CPC is also not in accordance with law. Allegations have been made against respondent No.5, but no affidavit has been filed with regard to 'Corrupt Practices', which is mandatory and petition and affidavit filed are also not in accordance with law. Hence, it comes under the purview of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejecting the plaint. 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has not considered the contentions in right perspective and dismissed the application, which is bad in law. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on para 12, 26 to 29, 31 and 33 of the judgment in the case of Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar reported in AIR Online 2023 SC 368; para 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 21 and 23 to 26 of the case P. A. Mohammed Riyas Vs. M.K. Raghavan & Ors. reported in 2012 SAR (Civil) 446; para 42 to 45 of the case Kishore Nath Vs. Misbahul Islam Laskar reported in AIR 2017 Gauhati 91; para 8 to 16 of Sukhlal Kushwaha Vs. Ganesh Singh reported in 2010 (I) MPJR 180; para 25, 27 and Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 3/25/2026 6:24:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7884 3 CR-284-2026 30 of Hukum Singh Karada Vs. Arun Bhimavad reported in AIR 2025 MP 67; Head Note (1) and last para of Mahefuzul Hasan Vs. Umedi Bai; para 1, 26, 31 and 37 of Gopikrishna Nema Vs. Ashwin Joshi reported in 2013(1) M.P.L.J. 21; para 25 to 28 of Dinesh Kumar Jain @ Boss Vs. Bahadursingh Chouhan reported in 2020 (3) M.P.L.J. 338; para 9, 10, 12, 29 and 31 of Premchand Guddu Vs. Professor Chintamani reported in 2016 (I) M.P.L.J. 513; para 28 of Kesar Singh Vs. Principal Secretary, State of M. P. reported i n 2025 (3) M.P.L.J. 218; Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar reported in AIR 2024 SC 2193; and Yadvendra Singh "Jaggu Bhaiya" Vs. Rakesh Giri and Another reported in 2023 (2) M.P.L.J. 467. On these submissions, learned counsel prays for allowing the civil revision by setting aside the impugned order. 4. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the impugned order and record in the light of the judgments relied upon. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that each and every objection raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been considered in the light of the judgments cited. Provision of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is attracted only on limited grounds given under the same, which is reproduced as under: "Order VII - Plaint : 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; Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 3/25/2026 6:24:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7884 4 CR-284-2026 (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:] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]" Points raised by the applicant are not covered by the aforesaid provision. Even objection raised with regard to non-compliance of Section 441 of the Act of 1956 and Sub Rule 62, 69 and 72 of the Rules of 1994 also does not attract the aforesaid provisions. 6. Learned trial Court has dilated on the grounds taken by the applicant from para 11 to 27 of the impugned order and thereafter, in para 28 has concluded that at this stage, it cannot be held that any violation is there as mentioned in the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The objections raised cannot be inquired into without recording the evidence from both the side and on the aforesaid grounds the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC i.e. I.A.No.02/2022 to 04/2022 have been dismissed. Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 3/25/2026 6:24:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7884 5 CR-284-2026 7. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the Court below in dismissing the aforesaid application as the points raised cannot be appreciated without giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and recording of evidence from their side. 8. Hence, this petition being devoid of any substance, fails and is hereby dismissed. (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE Tej Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 3/25/2026 6:24:09 PM</div>