# Veerpal v. Prabhat Tomar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 806
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 21174 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/veerpal-v-prabhat-tomar-ors-53776
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Ashish Kumar Singh, Birendra Kumar

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
A. Whether an election petition presented
through virtual mode during the COVID-19
pandemic, with the petitioner present before the
Court
by
video-conferencing,
amounts
to
9 All. Veerpal Vs. Prabhat Tomar & Ors.
807
sufficient
compliance
of
the
mandatory
requirement under Rule 4(3) of the Uttar
Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Election
Disputes relating to Membership) Rules, 1994,
requiring presentation of the petition in person?

B. Whether an election petition can be rejected
in part under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when it
discloses a cause of action on at least one
independent ground?

HEADNOTE
U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act,
1961 - Section 27; U.P. Zila Panchayats
(Settlement of Election Disputes relating to
Membership) Rules, 1994 - Rule 4(3) -
Mandatory requirement of personal presentation
- Virtual presence during COVID-19 restrictions
- Substantial compliance - Order VII Rule 11
CPC - Election petition cannot be rejected in
part - Sufficient cause of action pleaded
regarding recount
Held: Election petition was filed through both
modes i.e. physical filing and e-filing. Although
at the time of physical presentation the election
petitioner was not present, the petition filed
virtually was presented by the election petitioner
himself from his own e-mail ID and, while
entertaining the e-petition, the District Judge
recorded the virtual presence of the petitioner.
Therefore, there was sufficient compliance of
sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994, and it
cannot be said that the petition was not
presented personally. It will not result in
dismissal of the petition for non-compliance of
sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994, as the
petitioner was virtually present before the Court
at the time of presentation of the petition filed
through e-mode.

The election petition was filed mainly on two
grounds-(i)
improper
counting
by
the
authorities, and (ii) recounting being conducted
behind the back of the election petitioner
pursuant to an application moved by the
returned candidate, as a result whereof he was
declared elected. Even assuming that particulars
regarding the first ground were lacking, the
election petition was maintainable on the other
ground
i.e.
illegal
recounting,
for
which
sufficient pleadings were made by the election
petitioner. If the petition is based on two
distinct grounds and even if one ground is held
to be deficient, the election petition cannot be
rejected, as rejection under Order VII Rule 11
CPC must be of the election petition as a whole
and not in part. Thus, the application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rightly rejected.
[Paras 20, 23] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED

Devendra
Yadav
v.
District
Election
Officer/District Magistrate, Mau, 2011 (9) ADJ
219
Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, Civil Appeal
No. 7413 of 2023
Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P) Ltd.,
(2018) 11 SCC 780

List of Acts
U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act,
1961;
U.P. Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Election
Disputes relating to Membership) Rules, 1994;
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule

## Text

806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
apply, as that case dealt with illegal
possession
without
compliance
with
Section 17(3A), whereas here all statutory
requirements
were
fulfilled
and
the
acquisition had attained finality through
judicial scrutiny, making the ratio of Delhi
Airtech (supra) entirely inapplicable to the
petitioners' claims for de-notification.

8.15
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Hari
Ram & Another vs. State of Haryana &
Others (supra), and Shyam Verma vs.
Land
Acquisition
Office
(supra).
However, both decisions are also of no
assistance to the petitioners, as they are
clearly distinguishable on facts from the
present case.

8.16 In light of the above discussion,
this Court holds that:

(i) The acquisition of the land in
question was lawfully undertaken and
concluded under the Act, 1894, and
possession was duly taken in accordance
with law, which has been approved by the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2944 of
2013, 2945 of 2013, and 2947 of 2013, as
well as by the Division Bench of this Court
in Baij Nath and 80 others (supra).

(ii) The petitioners' predecessorsin-interest participated in the acquisition
by
filing
proceedings
for
enhanced
compensation under Section 18 of the Act,
1894, thereby acknowledging the validity of
acquisition.

(iii) The writ petition is barred by
constructive
res
judicata
along
with
delay/laches.

(iv) Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
does not apply to revive or nullify such
concluded acquisition proceedings, which
have already been upheld by the Supreme
Court.

(v)
No
case
of
parity
or
discrimination is made out, as the legal
foundation of the earlier de-notification
decisions no longer holds good after the
judgment
in
Indore
Development
Authority (supra).

G. CONCLUSION:

9. In conclusion, the present writ
petitions
are
found
to
be
legally
unsustainable, barred by principles of
finality, delay, and judicial discipline.
Thus, the petitions lack merit and deserve
to be dismissed.

9.1 Accordingly, all the above-noted
writ petitions stand dismissed. No order as
to costs.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 806
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ C No. 21174 of 2025

Veerpal ...Petitioner
Versus
Prabhat Tomar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhijeet Mishra, Nipun Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashish Kumar Singh, Birendra Kumar

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
A. Whether an election petition presented
through virtual mode during the COVID-19
pandemic, with the petitioner present before the
Court
by
video-conferencing,
amounts
to
9 All. Veerpal Vs. Prabhat Tomar & Ors.
807
sufficient
compliance
of
the
mandatory
requirement under Rule 4(3) of the Uttar
Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Election
Disputes relating to Membership) Rules, 1994,
requiring presentation of the petition in person?

B. Whether an election petition can be rejected
in part under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when it
discloses a cause of action on at least one
independent ground?

HEADNOTE
U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act,
1961 - Section 27; U.P. Zila Panchayats
(Settlement of Election Disputes relating to
Membership) Rules, 1994 - Rule 4(3) -
Mandatory requirement of personal presentation
- Virtual presence during COVID-19 restrictions
- Substantial compliance - Order VII Rule 11
CPC - Election petition cannot be rejected in
part - Sufficient cause of action pleaded
regarding recount
Held: Election petition was filed through both
modes i.e. physical filing and e-filing. Although
at the time of physical presentation the election
petitioner was not present, the petition filed
virtually was presented by the election petitioner
himself from his own e-mail ID and, while
entertaining the e-petition, the District Judge
recorded the virtual presence of the petitioner.
Therefore, there was sufficient compliance of
sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994, and it
cannot be said that the petition was not
presented personally. It will not result in
dismissal of the petition for non-compliance of
sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994, as the
petitioner was virtually present before the Court
at the time of presentation of the petition filed
through e-mode.

The election petition was filed mainly on two
grounds-(i)
improper
counting
by
the
authorities, and (ii) recounting being conducted
behind the back of the election petitioner
pursuant to an application moved by the
returned candidate, as a result whereof he was
declared elected. Even assuming that particulars
regarding the first ground were lacking, the
election petition was maintainable on the other
ground
i.e.
illegal
recounting,
for
which
sufficient pleadings were made by the election
petitioner. If the petition is based on two
distinct grounds and even if one ground is held
to be deficient, the election petition cannot be
rejected, as rejection under Order VII Rule 11
CPC must be of the election petition as a whole
and not in part. Thus, the application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rightly rejected.
[Paras 20, 23] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED

Devendra
Yadav
v.
District
Election
Officer/District Magistrate, Mau, 2011 (9) ADJ
219
Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, Civil Appeal
No. 7413 of 2023
Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P) Ltd.,
(2018) 11 SCC 780

List of Acts
U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act,
1961;
U.P. Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Election
Disputes relating to Membership) Rules, 1994;
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule
11.

List of Keywords
Election petition - Personal presentation -
Virtual presence - COVID-19 restrictions -
Substantial compliance - Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Partial rejection impermissible

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 31.05.2025 passed by Additional
District Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in
Election Petition No. 2 of 2021.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Abhijeet Mishra, Nipun
Singh
Advs For Respondents: Ashish Kumar Singh,
Birendra Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. This petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 31.05.2025
passed by Additional District Judge, Court
No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in Election Petition
No. 2 of 21 (Prabhat Tomar Vs. Veerpal
and others) rejecting an application under
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. filed by the
petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
elections for the post of Member Zila
Panchayat were held in State of U.P. on
19.04.2021. The counting started on
02.05.2021
and
was
completed
on
03.05.2021. In the counting, the present
petitioner was declared elected as member
Zila Panchayat for Ward No. 42 Zila
Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar. Respondent No.
1, who was declared second in the
aforesaid election filed an election petition
being Election Petition No. 2 of 2021
(Prabhat Tomar Vs. Veerpal and others)
under Section 27 sub-clause 2 (a) (b) of
U.P.
Kshettra
Panchayat
and
Zila
Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
as "Act, 1961") read with Rule 4 of Uttar
Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Settlement of
Election Disputes relating to Membership)
Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred as "Rules,
1994") on various grounds which are given
in the election petition itself, which has
been annexed as Annexure No. 2 of the
petition. Petitioner, who was the elected
member of Ward moved an application
under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for
rejecting the election petition, which was
contested
by
the
election
petitionerrespondent No. 1 by filing objections. The
Additional District Judge, Court No. 1,
Muzaffarnagar
by
the
order
dated
31.05.2025 rejected the application filed by
the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of
C.P.C. Hence the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that the application
under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. was
filed mainly on two grounds firstly, that the
Rules required that the election petition has
to be filed by the election petitioner inperson and in case, there are more than one
election petitioners then by one of the
election petitioners and secondly, on the
ground that from the perusal of the election
petition, it is apparent that the grounds
taken by the election petitioner are wholly
vague and the election petitioner has failed
to plead the material particulars. It has been
contended by counsel for the petitioner that
election petition was filed on 02.06.2021
and from the Munsrim Report, it is
apparent that the said petition was filed by
the petitioner through Shri Netrapal Singh,
Advocate. The counsel for the petitioner
has invited attention of the Court to the
Munsrim Report dated 02.06.2021 which is
annexed at page No. 72 A of the petition
and the same is quoted as under:

"श्रीमािजी,

यह प्राथमिा पत्र चुिाि याचचका श्री
िेत्रपाल लसंह एि० िे प्रस्तुत ककया है। प्राथी
द्िारा ग्रीटम काल ि अिकाश होिे के कारण
रूल 13 का प्राथमिा पत्र प्रस्तुत िह ं ककया है।
कोटम फीस की छायाप्रनत दाणखल की गयी है।
आख्या सेिा में सादर प्रस्तुत है।

 ह०अपठिीय
02.06.2021"

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
referred to paragraph Nos. 8 to 14 of the
election petition and contended that from
the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is
apparent that no details as to the votes
(ballot papers) which were alleged to be
casted in favour of the election petitioner,
but the credit of which has been given to
the present petitioner has been given. It has
also been contended that by means of the
present election petition, election petitioner
wants a roving inquiry which is not
9 All. Veerpal Vs. Prabhat Tomar & Ors.
809
permissible. Counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment in case of
Devendra Yadav Vs. District Election
Officer/ Disrict Magisrate, Mau reported
in 2011(9) ADJ 219, wherein this Court
has held while considering an election
petition arising from Uttar Pradesh Zila
Panchayats
(Settlement
of
Election
Disputes relating to Membership) Rules,
1994, that the election petition has to be
presented by election petitioner personally.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that election petition
was filed during COVID period i.e. on
02.06.2021. It has also been submitted by
counsel for the respondents that because of
COVID conditions, certain restrictions
were imposed. During COVID period, the
parties were permitted to file the election
petition etc. through virtual mode also. It
has also been submitted by counsel for the
respondents that in fact, the election
petitioner filed election petition by both the
modes. It was filed physically through an
Advocate on 02.06.2021 and the said
petition was also filed through email along
with an application under Rule 13 of
General Rules (Civil), 1957. It has been
submitted by counsel for the respondents
that the petition which was presented
physically was submitted through counsel
and not by the petitioner but the petition,
which
was
submitted
virtually
was
submitted by the election petitioner through
email, which was sent by the election
petitioner from his email I.D. and when the
matter was taken up on 02.06.2021, the
election petitioner was also present through
video conferencing and this fact of
presence of the election petitioner along
with his Advocate was noted by the court
in its order dated 02.06.2021, which is at
page No. 183 of the petition and the same
is quoted as under:-

"प्राथथी/विद्िाि
अचधिक्ता
को
प्राथमिापत्र अंतगमत नियम १३, सामान्य नियम
द िािी पर िचुमअल कोटम के माध्यम से सुिा।

उक्त प्राथमिापत्र इि कथिों के साथ
प्रस्तुत ककया गया है कक याची िे संलग चुिाि
याचचका अंतगमत नियम-४ उ०प्र० क्षेत्र पंचायत
तथा क्जला पंचायत अचधनियम १९६१. िािम िं०
४२ क्जला पंचायत मुजफ्फरिगर के सदस्य पद
के चुिाि पररणाम ददिांक ०३.०५.२०२१ को
चुिौती देिे के संबंध में प्रस्तुत की है। उक्त
अचधनियम १९६१ के अिुसार चुिाि पररणाम
घोवर्त होिे के उपरांत ३० ददि के अंदर चुिाि
याचचका प्रस्तुत करिी है, क्योंकक माििीय
उच्च न्यायालय िे ददिांक ०४.०६.२०२५ तक
न्यायालय में ग्रीटमकाल ि अिकाश घोवर्त
ककया हुआ है तथा याचधका प्रस्तुत करिे की
नियत
अिचध
३०
ददि
आज
ददिांक
०२.०६.२०२१ को समाप्त हो रह है। याची की
ओर से नियम १३, सामान्य नियम द िािी का
लाभ देते हुए याचचका को दजम ककए जािे की
याचिा की गयी है। सुिा तथा संलग्ि िाचचका
का अिलोकि ककया। नियम १३. सामान्य
नियम द िािी के प्राविधाि के प्रकाश में यदद
ककसी
आदेश
का
पाररत
ककया
जािा
अनतआिश्यक हो, तो न्यायालय अिकाश के
ददि भी ऐसा आदेश पाररत करिे से इंकार िह ं
करेगी।
अतः प्राथमिापत्र में ककए गए कथिों के प्रकाश में
याची को नियम-१३. सामान्य नियम द िािी
का लाभ ददया जािा न्यायोचचत है। अतः
प्राथमिापत्र स्िीकार ककए जािे योग्य है।
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
आदेश

प्राथमिापत्र
अंतगमत
नियम
१३,
सामान्य नियम द िािी स्िीकार ककया जाता
है। याची को चुिाि याचचका प्रस्तुत ककए जािे
की अिुमनत प्रदाि की जाती है। कायामलय
नियमािुसार मुंसररम आख्या अंककत करते हुए
संलग याचचका को दजम करे।"

6. It has also been submitted by
counsel for the respondents that from the
opening
words
of
the
order
dated
02.06.2021, it is apparent that the election
petitioner was present along with his
counsel when the matter was heard
virtually by the court and the leave as
contemplated under Rule 13 of General
Rules (Civil), 1957 was granted and
permission was given to the petitioner to
file the election petition and as such the
requirement of the Rule for presence of the
petitioner personally at the time of
presentation
of
petition
has
been
substantially complied.

7. Counsel for the respondents also
submitted that in a petition filed under the
Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila
Panchayats
Act,
1961
there
is
no
requirement
of
pleading
material
particulars
as
required
under
the
Representation of People Act, 1951 and the
only requirement is that the grounds of
challenge have to be mentioned in the
election petition. It has been further
submitted that apart from the grounds
which were referred by counsel for the
petitioner, the election petitioner has also
taken a ground that the result was declared
on 03.05.2021 in which the respondent No.
1 was declared as elected but subsequently,
without
any
notice
to
the
election
petitioner, an application for recounting of
votes filed by the present petitioner was
entertained and recounting was conducted
in absence of the election petitioner and the
present petitioner was declared elected. It is
further contended by counsel for the
respondents even assuming as contended
by counsel for the petitioner that material
particulars regarding the averments as
contained in paragraph numbers 8 to 14 are
not pleaded but definitely the election
petitioner has a cause of action for
maintaining the election petition on the
ground of recounting of votes for which
sufficient pleading has been made by the
election
petitioner
in
subsequent
paragraphs of the election petition.

8. It has been contended by counsel
for the respondents that since the election
petitioner has a cause of action for the
grounds taken by the election petitioner, the
application under Order VII Rule 11 of
C.P.C.
cannot
be
allowed,
as
the
plaint/election petition cannot be rejected in
part, it can be allowed in whole or has to be
rejected.

9.
Before
considering
the
rival
submissions, it will be necessary to look
into the statutory provisions relied upon by
both the parties.

10. Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh
Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat
Act, 1961 provides for resolution of
disputes
as
to
the
membership
or
disqualification of a member of Zila
Panchayat. Section 27 of the Act, 1961 is
quoted as under:-

"27. Disputes as to membership
or disqualifications - (1) If any dispute
arises as to whether a particular person is
a member of the Zila Panchayat under
9 All. Veerpal Vs. Prabhat Tomar & Ors.
811
[clause (a)]7 of Section 18, the dispute
shall be referred in the manner prescribed
to the State Government and the decision of
the State Government shall be final and
binding.

(2) If a dispute arises as to
whether a person -

(a) has been lawfully chosen [x x
x]1 a member of a Zila Panchayat under
Section 18; or

b) has ceased to remain eligible
for being chosen [x x x]2 a member [x x
x]3 of the Zila Panchayat for the purposes
of Section 20; or

(c) has become disqualified to be
Adhyaksha or 4[x x x] for the purposes of
Section 19.

the dispute shall be referred in
the manner prescribed to the Judge whose
decision shall be final and binding."

11. In exercise of powers under
Section 27 of the Act, 1961 read with subSection 1 and clauses (a) (b) of sub-Section
2 of Section 27 of the Act, 1961, Uttar
Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Settlement of
Election Disputes relating to Membership)
Rules, 1994 have been framed by the State
Government. The aforesaid Rules are in
form of special enactment providing for a
complete procedure for the resolution of
election dispute. Rule 4 of Rules, 1994
provides for a procedure of raising dispute
under Section 27(2)(a) and (b) of the Act,
1961. Rule 4 of Rules, 1994 is quoted as
under:

"4. Manner of raising disputes
under Section 27(2)(a) and (b).-(1) If a
dispute arises as to whether a person has
been lawfully chosen under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 18 the matter
shall be referred by means of a written
petition by any person who could legally be
a candidate at such choosing to the Judge
within thirty days of the date of choosing.
(2) If a dispute arises as to whether a
person has ceased to remain eligible for
being chosen a member, the matter shall in
the manner as provided in sub-rule (1) be
raised by any person whose name is
registered as an elector in the Electoral
roll for the territorial constituency of the
concerned Zila Panchayat. (3) Every
petition under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2)
shall be presented in person by the
petitioner, and if there are more than one
petitioners by any or all of them."

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted relying upon the judgment of this
Court in case of Devendra Yadav Vs.
District
Election
Officer/
District
Magistrate Mau (supra) that sub-Rule 3 of
Rule 4 of Rules, 1994 provides that every
petition under the sub-Rule 1 or sub-Rule 2
shall be presented in person by the
petitioner and if, there are more than one
petitioners then by any or all of them. It has
been further contended that presentation in
person has been held to be mandatory in
case of Devendra Yadav (supra) and in
case, the petition is not presented in person
by the petitioner, then the petition has to be
rejected and in the present case from the
record, it is apparent that election petition
was not presented by the petitioner in
person and therefore, the same was liable to
be rejected and the court below has
erroneously rejected the application filed
by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11
of C.P.C., which was filed on the ground
that the presentation of the election petition
was not in accordance with sub-Rule 3 of
Rule 4 of Rules, 1994. It has also been
submitted by counsel for the petitioner that
though, the case in Devendra Yadav (supra)
related to the election for the post of
Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat but the
Rule in question in case of Pramukh of
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kshettra Panchayat is Rule 32 of Uttar
Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats (Election of
Pramukhs
and
Up-Pramukhs
and
Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules,
1994 is pari materia with the sub-Rule 3 of
Rule 4 of Rules, 1994 and therefore, the
judgment in case of Devendra Yadav will
squarely apply to the present case.

13.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents though, admitted that the law
laid down in case of Devendra Yadav
(supra) will also apply to the election for
the post of Member Zila Panchayat, which
are governed by Rules, 1994 but further
submitted that the elections for the post of
Member Zila Panchayat were held in the
month of May, 2021 and the election
petition was filed in June, 2021 during the
COVID period. The COVID period was an
extraordinary situation and taking note of
the said position, certain relaxations were
granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as by this Court regarding conduct of
judicial proceedings. It has been submitted
by counsel for the respondents that at the
time when the Rules, 1994 were framed,
the presentation of election petition was
only through physical mode as at that time,
there was no concept of e-filing of
petitions, which came later on and taking
note of the extraordinary situation because
of the COVID, the Supreme Court has
issued direction permitting e-filing of the
petitions. Certain restriction were also
imposed regarding presence of the parties
as well as Advocates during the COVID
period in courts and Tribunals.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that it is correct that during
COVID period, certain restrictions were
imposed by this Court and in compliance
thereof certain guidelines were issued by
the District Judge regarding presentation
and conduct of the proceedings before the
District Court and other Tribunals. Learned
counsel for the petitioner referred to the
COVID
guidelines
dated
22.04.2021
annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ
petition and submitted that even though,
during COVID restriction period, the
presence of litigant and Advocate were
prohibited but as per the guidelines
prevailing on the date of filing of the
election petition, litigant/ party entry was
permissible subject to the permission
granted by the District Judge. Learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon
guideline No. 11 issued by this Court on
22.04.2021, wherein it has been provided
that District Judge may allow entry of only
such litigant/ party, whose presence is
required in the court premises. Guideline
No. 11 of the Guidelines dated 22.04.2021
are quoted as under:-

"11. The Litigants entry in the
Court premises be
strictly
restricted
District Judge may allow entry of only such
litigant/parties whose presence is required
in the Court premises ."

15. It has been further contended by
counsel for the petitioner that from the facts
of the present case, it is apparent that no
such application was ever made by the
respondent seeking permission from the
District Judge to appear in person for
presenting the election petition. It has also
been contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that COVID guidelines were
issued on the administrative side by this
Court and they cannot override the
statutory mandate of sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4
of Rules, 1994, especially, when in the
guidelines itself, it has been provided that
District Judge may permit a litigant to
appear where his presence is necessary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
9 All. Veerpal Vs. Prabhat Tomar & Ors.
813
submitted that in case of Devendra Yadav
(supra) this Court has held that the election
petition has to be presented by the
petitioner in person and in case, the same is
not done, the election petition has to be
rejected.

16. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that there is no
dispute to the proposition of law as laid
down by this Court in case of Devendra
Yadav (supra) and also to the fact that
under certain circumstances, permission
can be granted by the District Judge to
appear in person but at the same time by
the guidelines, filing by both the modes i.e.
physical filing as well as e-filing was
permitted and in the present case, the
petitioner has presented his petition by both
the modes. From the record, it is apparent
that at the time when the petition, which
was filed virtually by the petitioner was
taken up by the District Judge, the
petitioner was present along with his
Advocate virtually, which is noted in the
order itself and there has been a sufficient
compliance of mandate of sub-Rule 3 of
Rule 4 of Rules, 1994.

17.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents relied upon the order dated
02.06.2021, which has already been quoted
above to submit that when the matter was
taken up, virtually by the District Judge,
presence of petitioner was noted in the
order by the District Judge itself.

18.
Considering
the
respective
arguments of the counsel, there is no
dispute to the proposition of law as
submitted by counsel for the petitioner that
in view of the judgment in case of
Devendra Yadav (supra) the requirement
under sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of Rules, 1994
for presentation of the petition in person by
the election petitioner is mandatory and in
case, the said condition is not fulfilled by
the election petitioner i.e. election petition
is not presented in person by the election
petitioner, the election petition is liable to
be dismissed but considering the facts of
the case as well as that the extraordinary
situation
prevailing
due
to
COVID
pandemic, it was permitted that the election
petition can be filed by two modes i.e.
physical
presentation
as
well
as
presentation through e-mode, I am of the
view that in case, the petition is presented
through e-mode and when the petition is
taken up by the authority (in the present
case by the District Judge) virtually, if the
petitioner is virtually present at the time of
hearing of the petition that will be
sufficient compliance of sub-Rule 3 of Rule
4 of Rules, 1994 for the reason that
objective behind the mandatory provision
of sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of Rules, 1994 is to
check that the election petition is not
presented by an imposter but a genuine
person, who is alive and that it is not
frivolous or vexatious. In case of Devendra
Yadav (supra) also in paragraph No. 44 of
the judgment of this Court has held as
under:

"44. In view of the above and the
object behind the mandatory provision of
Rule 35 (2) of the Rules to check that the
election petition is not presented by an
imposter but a genuine person who is alive
and that it is not frivolous or vexatious, I
am of the opinion that irrespective of the
fact that the Rules are silent as to the
consequence of not presenting the election
petition in the manner prescribed, the court
has power to dismiss it as not maintainable
without compelling the parties to to
through the cumbersome process of trial. In
such a situation, the court below has not
erred in applying the ratio of G.V.
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sreerama Reddy (Supra) and in the
dismissing the election petition as not
maintainable on the ground it was not
presented by the appellant in person or by
his counsel in his presence."

19. In the present case, the petition
was filed by both the means i.e. physical
mode as well as e-mode. It is true that at
the time of physical presentation of the
petition, the petitioner was not present, but
the petition which was e-filed by the
petitioner himself from his own e-mail I.D.
and while entertaining the e-petition,
District Judge has mentioned the presence
of the petitioner virtually and therefore, in
my view there is sufficient compliance of
sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of Rules, 1994 and it
cannot be said that the petitioner was not
presented personally. The fact that the
petitioner was present at the time of
presentation of the election petition before
the court virtually, has not been denied by
counsel for the petitioner. Even in the
objections filed by the respondent to the
application filed by the petitioner under
Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. in paragraph
Nos. 15 and 16 of the objections, it has
been stated by the respondent that when the
petition which was filed through e-mode
was heard by the District Judge on
02.06.2021, the election petitioner was
present along with his Advocate through
virtual mode. Paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of
the objections filed by the respondent are
quoted as under:-

"15. यह कक याची की ओर से प्रस्तुत
चुिाि याचचका ददंिाक 01.06.2021 को श्रीमाि
क्जला जज महोदय मुजफ्फरिगर के ई-मेल
कम्पयूटर सैन्टर पर याची की ई-मेल आई०िी०
के माध्यम से भेजी गयी थी जो ददंिाक
01.06.2021 को बारह बजे के बाद श्रीमाि क्जला
जज महोदय मुजफ्फरिगर के ई-मेल कम्प्यूटर
सैन्टर पर ऑकफस को प्राप्त हुई थी क्जस कारण
उस पर सुििाई Virtual कोटम द्िारा ददंिाक
01.06.2021 को िह की गई थी बक्ल्क ददंिाक
02.06.2021 को की गई थी।

16.यह कक चूंकक ददंिाक 01.06.2021
को एंि ददंिाक 02.06.2021 को एंि उससे पूिम
कोविि-19
िैश्श्िक
माहमार
के
कारण
माििीय उच्च न्यायालय के ददशा और निदेशो
के अिुसार न्यायालय द्िारा केिल िये िादो के
दायरो की सुििाई Virutal Court द्िारा ह की
जा रह थी और ककसी भी अचधिक्ता या
िादकार को न्यायालय में प्रिेश करिा िक्जमत
था। इसललए ददंिाक 01.06.2021 या ददंिाक
02.06.2021 को याची प्रस्तुत याचचका को
व्यक्क्तगत रुप से माििीय न्यायालय के
समक्ष प्रस्तुत करिे में असमथम था, इसललए
याची िे प्रस्तुत याचचका की सुििाई Virtual
Court के माध्यम से ककये जािे हेतू प्रस्तुत
याचचका को सक्षम न्यायालय माििीय क्जला
जज महोदय के ई-मेल कम्प्यूटर सैन्टर पर
अपिी ई-मेल आई०िी० के माध्मय से प्रस्तुत
ककया था और ददंिाक 02.06.2021 को जब
प्रस्तुत याचचका की सुििाई Virtual Court
द्िारा की गई थी तो उस समय भी याची अपिे
अचधिक्ता श्री िेत्रपाल लसंह एििोकेट ि श्री
सुशील कुमार एििोकेट के साथ Virtual Court
के द्िारा की गई सुििाई के समय व्यक्क्तगत
रुप से उपक्स्थत था। और इस सम्बन्ध में
Virtual Court द्िारा पूणम संतुक्टट सुििाई के
9 All. Veerpal Vs. Prabhat Tomar & Ors.
815
समय कर ल गई थी और याची िे ददंिाक
02.06.2021 को अपिी और से जिरल रुल 13
सामान्य नियम द िािी से सम्बक्न्धत प्राथमिा
पत्र अपिे हस्ताक्षरों से एंि अपिे अचधिक्ता श्री
िेत्रपाल लसंह एििोकेट के माध्यम से अपिी ईमेल आई०िी० के माध्यम से क्जला जज
मुजफ्फरिगर को प्रेवर्त कर ददया था जैसा कक
माििीय न्यायालय द्िारा आदेश ददंिाक
02.06.2021 में भी उल्लेणखत ककया गया है।"

20. Thus, in my view even though the
petition which was filed physically was not
presented by the petitioner in person will
not result in dismissal of the petition for
non-compliance of sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of
Rules, 1994 as the petition which was filed
virtually, at the time of presentation, the
petitioner was present virtually before the
court and therefore, I am of the view that
substantial compliance of sub-Rule 3 of
Rule 4 of Rules, 1994 has been made and
the petition cannot be dismissed at this
stage.

21. The next submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
averments made in the election petition are
wholly vague and the material particulars
as required by law to be given in the
election petition are not there, the election
petitioner want a roving inquiry, which is
not permissible under law. In this regard,
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and
of this Court.

22. Learned counsel for the respondent
without going into the merits of the
submission made by counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the election
petition was filed mainly on two grounds,
firstly that the counting was not proper by
the respondent authorities, averment in this
regard has been made in paragraph Nos. 8
to 14 of the election petition, which has
also been referred by counsel for the
petitioner to contend that the material
particulars were not given in those
paragraphs and secondly, the petitioner has
also challenged the election on the ground
that the election petitioner was declared
elected in the election and thereafter, on an
application being moved by the petitioner
behind the back of the respondent,
recounting was done by the authorities and
in the said recounting the petitioner was
declared elected. Averments in this regard
have been made by the election petitioner
in paragraph Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24 and 25 of the election petition. It has
been
submitted
by
counsel
for
the
respondent even assuming for the sake of
argument that election petitioner has not
given the particulars as submitted by
counsel for the petitioner, the election
petition is maintainable on the other ground
i.e. illegal recounting by the authorities for
which all material particulars have been
given by the election petitioner. It has been
further submitted by counsel for the
respondent that if the petition is filed on
two separate distinct grounds and even if it
is held that petition is not maintainable on
one of the ground, the election petition
cannot be rejected for the reason that
election petition has to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. in totality and
not in part.

23. I have perused the election petition
and have considered the rival submissions
made by the respective counsel and from
perusal of the election petition, it is
apparent that so far as the grounds of
challenging the election because of illegal
recounting being done behind the back of
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the respondent cannot be said to be wanting
particulars as sufficient pleading has been
made in this regard in the election petition
and therefore, without going into the merits
of the submission of the petitioner that the
ground regarding wrong counting of votes
at the time of counting, lacked material
particulars, even if the same is taken to be
correct the application under Order VII
Rule 11 cannot be allowed for the reason
that the plaint/election petition has to be
rejected in totality and not in part.

24. In my view, I am supported by
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
Kum. Geetha, D/o Late Krishna &
others v. Nanjundaswamy & others
passed in Civil Appeal No. 7413 of 2023.
Paragraph no. 11 & 12 of the judgment is
quoted as under:

"11. There is yet another reason
why the judgment of the High Court is not
sustainable. In an application under Order
VII Rule 11,CPC a plaint cannot be
rejected in part. This principle is well
established and has been continuously
followed since the 1936 decision in Maqsud
Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co, AIR 1936
Lahore
1021.This
principle
is
also
explained in a recent decision of this Court
in Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants
(P) Ltd, (2018) 11 SCC 780, which was
again
followed
in
Madhav
Prasad
Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd. (2019) 7 SCC
158. The relevant portion of Madhav
Prasad (supra) is extracted hereinunder:

"10. We do not deem it necessary
to elaborate on all other arguments as we
are inclined to accept the objection of the
appellant(s) that the relief of rejection of
plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7
Rule 11(d) CPC cannot be pursued only in
respect of one of the defendant(s). In other
words, the plaint has to be rejected as a
whole or not at all, in exercise of power
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Indeed, the
learned Single Judge rejected this objection
raised by the appellant(s) by relying on the
decision of the Division Bench of the same
High Court. However, we find that the
decision of this Court in Sejal Glass Ltd.
[Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P)
Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 780 : (2018) 5 SCC
(Civ) 256] is directly on the point. In that
case, an application was filed by the
defendant(s) under Order 7 Rule 11(d)
CPC stating that the plaint disclosed no
cause of action. The civil court held that
the plaint is to be bifurcated as it did not
disclose any cause of action against the
Director's Defendant(s) 2 to 4 therein. On
that basis, the High Court had opined that
the suit can continue against Defendant 1
company alone. The question considered by
this Court was whether such a course is
open to the civil court in exercise of powers
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The Court
answered the said question in the negative
by adverting to several decisions on the
point which had consistently held that the
plaint can either be rejected as a whole or
not at all. The Court held that it is not
permissible to reject plaint qua any
particular portion of a plaint including
against some of the defendant(s) and
continue the same against the others. In no
uncertain terms the Court has held that if
the
plaint
survives
against
certain
defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7
Rule 11(d) CPC will have no application at
all, and the suit as a whole must then
proceed to trial. ...

12. Indubitably, the plaint can
and must be rejected in exercise of powers
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on account
of
non-compliance
with
mandatory
requirements or being replete with any
institutional deficiency at the time of
presentation of the plaint, ascribable to
9 All. Hamid & Ors. Vs. Kailash & Ors.
817
clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order 7
CPC. In other words, the plaint as
presented must proceed as a whole or can
be rejected as a whole but not in part..."
(emphasis supplied)

12. In view of the above referred
principle, we have no hesitation in holding
that the High Court committed an error in
rejecting the plaint in part with respect to
Schedule-A property and permitting the
Plaintiffs to prosecute the case only with
respect to Schedule-B property. This
approach while considering an application
under Order VII Rule 11, CPC is
impermissible. We, therefore, set aside the
judgment and order of the High Court even
on this ground."

25. So far as contention of counsel for
the petitioner that the Tribunal has
erroneously
relied
upon
Full
Bench
judgment of this Court in case of Saumitra
Devi Vs. Special Judge reported in 2006
(6) ADJ 134, I am not inclined to interfere
on this score as I have already held that
there was sufficient compliance of the
provisions of sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of
Rules, 1994.

26. In view of the discussions made
above, I am of the view that the Election
Tribunal/ District Judge has committed no
error in rejecting the application filed by
the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of
the C.P.C. The petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 817
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Writ C No. 26340 of 2025

Hamid & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Kailash & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anas Mahboob, Ashish Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vivek Saran

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a prospective vendee under an
agreement to sell, whose suits for specific
performance are pending, can claim a right of
apportionment in compensation under Section
76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013, on the basis of
such agreement.

HEADNOTE
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 -
Agreement to sell - No transfer of ownership -
No creation of interest or charge - Only a
personal right to seek specific performance -
Land later acquired - No Right to claim
apportionment of compensation - Right to Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 - Section 76 - Scope - Limited to
existing rights - No adjudication of rights
dependent on a pending suit - Mere pendency
of suit for specific performance and interim
injunction do not confer "interest" entitling
compensation
apportionment
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 21 -
Compensation
in
substitution
of
specific
performance - Relief can be moulded only by
Civil Court in suit for specific performance - Not
within scope of proceedings under Section 76 of
2013 Act
HELD
Petitioners, on the basis of agreements to sell
executed prior to acquisition of land, sought
apportionment of compensation before the Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority. Their claim was rejected on the
ground
that
pending
suits
for
specific
performance did not confer any existing right or
title in the acquired land.Held:According to