Notices must be issued in recrimination petitions under Section 97, but only upon the election petition’s success.

The respondent No. 1 (recriminator) in an Election Petition filed a recrimination petition under Section 97 of the Representation of People Act, 1951

Initially registered as a writ petition, it was later converted into an interim application (I.A. No. 32 of 2024) within the main election petition

The recriminator moved Application IA/43 of 2024 seeking the issuance of fresh formal notices to all respondents regarding the recrimination petition, arguing it constitutes a "counter-claim" requiring the same procedural rigor as a plaint

The election petitioner opposed this, arguing that Section 97 is consequential and does not explicitly mandate notice to respondents

1. Whether a recrimination petition filed under Section 97 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, requires the issuance of formal notices to the respondents

2. Whether such notices must be issued immediately upon filing or at a subsequent stage of the trial

The Court applied Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which mandates that election petitions be tried "as nearly as may be" in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Section 97 of the Act regarding the right of a returned candidate to lead evidence against an alternative claimant

Order VIII Rule 6-A(4) of the CPC, which treats a counter-claim as a plaint

Chapter XV-A, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules regarding notices

Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal (AIR 1964 SC 1200) and Bhag Mal v. Ch. Parabhu Ram (1985 1 SCC 61), establishing that a recrimination petition is in the nature of a counter-claim

The Court reasoned that since Section 87 of the Act imports CPC procedures and Section 97 has been judicially characterized as a "counter-claim," the procedural requirements of Order VIII Rule 6-A of the CPC must apply

Therefore, a recrimination petition must be treated like a plaint, necessitating notice to respondents to allow them to lead evidence in rebuttal

However, the Court observed that a recrimination petition is "consequential". Citing Janardan Dattuappa Bondre v. Govind Prasad Shiv Prasad Choudhar (1979 4 SCC 516), the Court noted that the need to adjudicate a recrimination petition only arises if the election of the returned candidate is first found void

Thus, while the right to notice exists, the timing of such notice depends on whether the trial reaches the stage where the alternative claim for the seat is handled

The Court ordered that the application for issuance of notices be kept in abeyance, to be revived only if the final outcome of the election petition warrants an adjudication of the recrimination petition under Section 98(c) of the Act. Application IA/43 of 2024 was disposed of accordingly