HC dismisses BJP MLA Devender Attri’s plea against amended election petition

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed an application filed by returned candidate Devender Attri—a BJP MLA from Uchana. He was seeking dismissal of amended election petition filed against him by Bijendra Singh, a congress candidate.

Holding that the matter disclosed a cause of action, Justice Anoop Chitkara ruled: “The election petition discloses proper cause of action, and as such, this Court cannot dismiss the same under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without putting it on trial.”

Justice Chitkara made it clear that the objections raised were untenable, as the amendment did not expand the scope of the petition but only confined it. “The submission that the copy of the amended election petition provided to him is not attested as a true copy, is not signed by the petitioner, and is not verified properly, is to be analysed by keeping in view the primary distinction in the present matter that by amendment, the prayers were reduced and confined to a limited prayer of improper rejection of 215 postal votes, in terms of the prayer clause, which was already there in the unamended petition, and not even a single prayer was increased,” the Bench asserted.

The court observed that the photocopy of the amended petition had been physically served on the returned candidate through his counsel on July 15. It was not the applicant/returned candidate’s case that the copy supplied to him was different, had alterations, “or that there were additions or omissions in comparison to what was filed”. The copy of the amended petition contained signatures purported to be those of the petitioner, and it was supported by an affidavit that has been duly notarised.

Referring to another objection related to non-supply of copies to all respondents, the Bench asserted: “Whenever an amended petition is filed, then at that time, there is no need to file copies even for those respondents who had been proceeded ex-parte because they are not prejudiced due to non-receipt of the copies for the reason that, due to lack of interest, they have already discontinued to contest the petition. However, if the ex-parte order is set aside, they can certainly be supplied with a copy of the original as well as the amended petition; and if the petitioner fails to do so, it might be a valid ground for dismissal on their request.”

The court also did not find merit in the contention that the amended petition was not personally filed. “No objection was raised at the time of the original election petition, and the amendment apparently did not cause any prejudice to the returned candidate.”

Pointing at the delay in disposal of the election petition, the Bench observed that the petitioner had consciously restricted the relief to ensure the matter was decided within the election term. “Vide amendment, the petitioner endeavoured to restrict the prayers, and the amendment did not increase or improve the scope of the petition or its prayer, but restricted, reduced, and decreased the scope of prayers; as such, no prejudice is caused to the returned candidate,” the Court asserted. Advocate Abhimanyu Tiwari and counsel Siddhant Saroha appeared for the petitioner.