Election petitions must follow CPC procedure; failure to frame issues and record evidence vitiates the trial.

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 9) in an election petition

The petitioner sought a recount of votes, but the SDO dismissed the petition

The procedural history indicates that the SDO passed the final order based solely on the reply filed by the respondents, without framing issues or allowing the parties to adduce evidence

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside the order and for a direction to conduct a recount

1. Whether the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of The M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, is mandatory for the adjudication of an election petition

2. Whether the failure to frame issues and record evidence in an election petition trial vitiates the final order

Rule 11 of The M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, which mandates that every election petition must be enquired into as nearly as possible in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908

The court also relied on Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam, 1993, and established precedents including Vadivelu v. Sundaram and Ors. (2000) and Rameshchandra Bhilala vs. Bashir and Ors. (2011), which emphasize that election petitions must be tried as suits

This includes powers related to discovery, inspection, and the examination of witnesses on oath

The court observed that under Rule 11, the Specified Officer is required to follow the trial procedure of a civil suit, which necessitates the framing of issues and the recording of evidence

In the present case, the SDO passed the final order without performing these mandatory steps, relying only on the pleadings

The court determined that the absence of issues and evidence meant the trial was not conducted in accordance with law, thus vitiating the entire proceeding

The court further dismissed the respondent's reliance on Hukum Singh Karada vs. Arun Bhimavad, noting it was factually distinguishable and did not override the mandatory procedural requirements of Rule 11 in this context

The court answered that the procedural requirements of Rule 11 are mandatory

The matter was remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh adjudication. The SDO was directed to frame proper issues based on the existing pleadings, afford parties an opportunity to lead evidence, and decide the matter within eight weeks from the parties' appearance on 30.04.2026

The petition was disposed of with these directions