Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 685 (KAR)

B. R. Neelakantappa v. G. H. Srinivasa

2014-07-24

A.S.BOPANNA

body2014
JUDGMENT A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The petitioner who has secured 415 votes in the 126-Tarikere Legislative Assembly Constituency which consists of 1,59,863 electors of which 1,24,727 votes were polled is before this Court. He is assailing the declaration of the first respondent as the elected candidate on securing 35,817 votes in the result declared on 08.05.2013, on the ground that he has indulged in corrupt practice by using the photograph of the petitioner also in the pamphlets printed and distributed while soliciting votes for the first respondent. The acceptance of nomination of the second respondent who ultimately secured 34,918 votes in the same election is also assailed on the ground that particulars with regard to his bank details had not been disclosed. The respondents in addition to filing their objection statement have also filed the applications seeking that certain paragraphs of the petition be struck off and the petition be rejected in limine. 2. The first respondent has therefore filed I.A. No. 1 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short) seeking rejection of plaint, while a similar application is filed by the second respondent also in I.A. No. 4 of 2013. The first respondent has filed another application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC in I.A. No. 1 of 2014 seeking to strike out paragraph Nos. 10, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23 and 30 and consequently dismiss the petition. It is also contended that the petition is not maintainable for want of proper verification by way of appropriate affidavit required both under the provision of CPC and Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act for short). It is also contended that the material particulars are not forthcoming and the petition does not disclose the cause of action. The petitioner has filed his objection statement to the application contending that the particulars pleaded and the verifying affidavit filed is in order and that the applications are liable to be dismissed. 3. The learned Counsel for the first respondent in support of his contentions has relied on the following decisions:- (a) The case of Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 (Supp) SCC 315, wherein it is held that the power under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised as it is applicable to election petition by virtue of Section 87 of RP Act. The Court trying the election petition can exercise such power and summarily dismiss a petition which does not furnish material facts and particulars essential for disclosing the cause of action relating to corrupt practice. (b) The case of Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar, (2009) 9 SCC 310 , wherein it is held that all material facts must be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by him. The object and purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the case he has to meet and in the absence of the pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact will entail dismissal of the election petition. It is held that all basic and primary facts which must be proved by a party to establish the existence of cause of action or defense are material facts. (c) The case of Patil Vaishali Ashok vs. Digambarrao Yashwanthrao Patil & Others, AIR 2006 Kar 205 , wherein it is held that the election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts and must set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice relied on including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. (d) The case of Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577 , wherein it is held that the paras of the election petition which do not disclose cause of action are liable to struck off under Order VI Rule 15. If it is found that the petition does not disclose cause of action and the trial would prejudice, embarrass and delay the proceedings, the Court can strike out pleadings even before the written statement is filed and reject the petition. (e) The case of V. Narayanaswamy vs. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu, 2000 (2) SCC 294 , wherein the earlier decision was relied to state that the election law being statutory in character must be strictly complied with, since an election petition is not guided by ever changing common law principles of justice and notions of equity. Being statutory in character it is essential that it must conform to the requirements of our election law. Being statutory in character it is essential that it must conform to the requirements of our election law. In that case the dismissal was upheld since the affidavit did not meet the requirement of law and the petition did not disclose any cause of action or triable issue. (f) The decision in the case of Ram Singh & Others vs. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3 , wherein it is held that the corrupt practice must be committed by the candidate or his polling agent or by others with the implicit or explicit consent of the candidate or his polling agent. When allegation of fraud or corrupt practice is made and when two views are possible, the one in favour of the elected candidate should be accepted and the election should not be declared void. (g) The case of Quamarul Islam vs. S.K. Kanta & Others, AIR 1994 SC 1733 , wherein it is held that when the allegation of corrupt practice in the election are not specific, precise or clear and when both material facts and particulars have not been supplied with sufficient clarity and when the affidavit filed in support of the election petition was not clear there would be no triable issues and the petition is liable to be dismissed. (h) The case of Jitu Patnaik vs. Sanathan Mohakud & Others, 2012 (4) SCC 194 , wherein it is held that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish existence of a cause of action or defense are material facts and afford a basis for allegations made in the election petition. Bare allegations are never treated as material facts and whether the averments in an election petition constitute material facts or not would depend upon the facts of each case. (i) The case of Santhosh Yadav vs. Narender Singh, 2002 (1) SCC 160 , wherein it is held that all material facts must be set out in an election petition and must be substantiated by cogent evidence before the petitioner can succeed and the success of a winning candidate should not be lightly interfered with. 4. (i) The case of Santhosh Yadav vs. Narender Singh, 2002 (1) SCC 160 , wherein it is held that all material facts must be set out in an election petition and must be substantiated by cogent evidence before the petitioner can succeed and the success of a winning candidate should not be lightly interfered with. 4. The learned counsel for the election petitioner on the other hand has relied on the following decisions:- (i) The case of Virender Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh & Others, AIR 2007 SC 581 , wherein it is held that material facts are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or the defense of the defendant depends. What particulars could be said to be material facts would depend on the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. It is however absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish the existence of a cause of action or defense are material facts and must be stated in the pleading by the party. The object and purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the case he has to meet. In the absence of pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact will entail dismissal of the suit or petition. Particulars on the other hand are details of the case which is in the nature of evidence a party would lead at the time of trial. (ii) The case of Nandiesha Reddy vs. Kavitha Mahesh, (2011) 7 SCC 721 , wherein it is held that election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for the claim. In an election petition which does not contain material facts, no relief can be granted. All specific and primary facts which are required to be proved by a party for the relief claimed are material facts. It must be pleaded, since the object and purpose is to enable the contesting party to know the case which it has to meet. An election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish the material facts to give rise to a cause of action. It must be pleaded, since the object and purpose is to enable the contesting party to know the case which it has to meet. An election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish the material facts to give rise to a cause of action. What are material facts always depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application is possible to be laid down. (iii) The case of Raj Narain vs. Indira Nehru Gandhi & Another, (1972) 3 SCC 850 , wherein it is held that an election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine because full particulars of corrupt practice alleged were not set out. If an objection was taken and the Tribunal is of the view that full particulars have not been set out, the petitioner is to be given an opportunity to amend or amplify the particulars. It is only in the event of non compliance with such order to supply the particulars, that the charge which remained vague could be struck down. (iv) The case of Ponnala Lakshmaiah vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Others, AIR 2012 SC 2638 , wherein it is held that though there is no denial of the fact that the Courts are competent to dismiss petitions if it does not disclose cause of action, it cannot be given a short shrift by taking an unduly technical view. While examining whether the plaint or an election petition discloses cause of action, the Court has to have full and comprehensive view of the pleading. The averments made cannot be read out of context or in isolation. They must be taken in totality for a true and proper understanding of the case set up. Even after assuming the averments to be factually correct the Court finds no cause of action emerging from the averments, then it may be justified in rejecting the plaint. The defect in the verification and the affidavit is a curable defect. A petition that raises triable issues should not be dismissed simply because the affidavit filed by the petitioner is not in the given format which can be cured by the election petitioner by filing a proper affidavit. The defect in the verification and the affidavit is a curable defect. A petition that raises triable issues should not be dismissed simply because the affidavit filed by the petitioner is not in the given format which can be cured by the election petitioner by filing a proper affidavit. (v) The case of D. Ramachandran vs. R.V. Janakiraman & Others, (1999) 3 SCC 267 , wherein a distinction between full particulars and material facts has been drawn and it has been held that the Court cannot dissect the pleadings into several parts and strike out portion which does not disclose cause of action. (vi) The case of G.M. Siddeshwar vs. Prasanna Kumar, (2013) 4 SCC 776 , wherein the verification of the petition and the filing of the affidavit verifying the petition was considered both in the context of the provision contained Order VI Rule 15(4) of CPC and as contained in Section 83 of RP Act. The affidavit as provided under CPC is held to be a stand alone affidavit, hence the non-filing of which or the defect therein does not affect the petition. But the affidavit as required under Section 83 of RP Act should be filed with substantial compliance though noncompliance with Section 83 is a curable defect. However, if there is total and complete non compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of RP Act, then the petition cannot be described as an election petition and may be dismissed at the threshold. The summary dismissal of an election petition for non-compliance of Section 83, though not contemplated under Section 86 of RP Act, the rejection is approved since an election petition is to be tried as nearly as possible in accordance with the procedure applicable under CPC to the trial of suits and an election petition could also be dismissed, if it did not disclose a cause of action. The consequence of not curing the defect was also adverted to. The earlier decision was noticed wherein despite the written statement raising the defect it was not rectified and until the defect is rectified the petition could not have been tried and further when material particulars are not pleaded it could be rejected for non compliance of the mandatory provisions. However, on the facts of the case the affidavit by Prasanna Kumar was found to be in substantial compliance. However, on the facts of the case the affidavit by Prasanna Kumar was found to be in substantial compliance. (vii) The case of T.M. Jacob vs. C. Poulose & Others, (1999) 4 SCC 274 , wherein, while considering as to whether the absence of the seal of the Notary or the name in the true copy supplied to the appellant therein could be construed as an omission, the non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 83 of the RP Act was considered and the doctrine of substantial compliance was held applicable in respect of the defects under Section 83, while the strict compliance entailing dismissal was held in respect of non compliance of the requirements of Section 81(3) of the RP Act. (viii) The case of Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs. Roop Singh Rathore & Others, AIR 1964 SC 1545 , wherein it is held that a defect in verification in the matter of election petition is an issue which comes within clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 83 and the defect can be removed in accordance with the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. From the cumulative perusal of the decisions cited by either side, the legal position enunciated is clear. The position of law is that even in an election petition filed under the RP Act, the Court is entitled to exercise the power under CPC in order to examine the petition so as to find out whether the petition complies with the provisions of the RP Act and discloses the cause action to proceed further. In the event of the petition being defective and not making out the cause of action the Court would be entitled to dismiss the petition at the threshold, in limine even though the same is not provided for in Section 86 of RP Act. In an appropriate case and in the relevant circumstance, the Court can also exercise the power to strike out pleadings as provided under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC. To come to a conclusion as to whether the petition discloses the cause of action, the petition alone should be looked into. While thus considering the petition averments, it should not be read out of context nor should the pleadings be dissected. To come to a conclusion as to whether the petition discloses the cause of action, the petition alone should be looked into. While thus considering the petition averments, it should not be read out of context nor should the pleadings be dissected. It must be read as a whole and while doing so, a distinction between, full particulars, material particulars and material facts should be borne in mind. Material facts are those facts which constitute cause of action and it means entire bundle of facts in concise form. However, the paragraphs of the petition which do not disclose cause of action, embarrass and delay the trial can be struck off. What are material facts always depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application is possible nor can it be put in a straight jacket. Full and comprehensive view of the pleading along with its tenor and terms is to be taken as a whole. When allegation of corrupt practice in the election petition is not specific, precise or clear and when both material facts and particulars have not been supplied with sufficient clarity and when the affidavit filed in support of the election petition was not clear, there would be no triable issue. Bare allegations are never treated as material facts. Hence, in that light if the election petition is examined and if no cause of action is made out, the Court would be justified in rejecting the petition at the threshold. In the backdrop of the legal position, it is necessary to refer to and examine the averments made in the instant petition. 6. On the contention with regard to the petition not being verified as contemplated under Section 83 of RP Act and Order VI Rule 15 (4) of CPC, the position of law enunciated by the decisions noticed above is that in respect of an election petition, the affidavit filed in addition to the verification made in the petition as required under Order VI Rule 15(4) CPC is not a mandatory requirement. As such an affidavit as required under CPC is a stand alone document and any defect in such affidavit does not become fatal to the petition. However, the affidavit as required under Section 83 of RP Act in Form No. 25 should be filed with substantial compliance and defects if any is curable. As such an affidavit as required under CPC is a stand alone document and any defect in such affidavit does not become fatal to the petition. However, the affidavit as required under Section 83 of RP Act in Form No. 25 should be filed with substantial compliance and defects if any is curable. But if such affidavit is with total and complete non-compliance, then the petition cannot be described as an election petition and can be dismissed at the threshold. That is so, since the petition cannot be tried until the defect is rectified. 7. In the light of the above, the contention in the instant case is to be noticed to come to a conclusion as to whether the petition herein is rendered defective for want of compliance relating to the appropriate affidavit. In addition to the verification made to the petition, a verifying affidavit in terms of the requirement under Order VI Rule 15(4) CPC is filed in the instant case. Apart from the defect pointed out in the manner in which the paragraphs 1 to 34 is mentioned in a composite fashion as against the same being split in the verification with regard to averments on personal knowledge and averments based on information, the date of the affidavit being prior to the date of the petition is also pointed out to contend that it is defective. Despite such contention, the same need not be adverted to in detail insofar as the affidavit filed in compliance of the requirement under CPC, since in any event, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the affidavit as contemplated under CPC is not an absolute requirement and therefore the said defects are of no consequence. 8. The issue however is with regard to the affidavit filed in Form No. 25. In the instant case, the petitioner has instituted the election petition alleging that the first respondent has committed corrupt practice as defined under Section 123(4) of RP Act. Therefore, in view of the requirement enunciated in the proviso to Section 83(1) of RP Act an affidavit in Form No. 25 is to be filed. The petitioner has no doubt filed such affidavit but the issue is as to whether the same satisfies the requirement. Therefore, in view of the requirement enunciated in the proviso to Section 83(1) of RP Act an affidavit in Form No. 25 is to be filed. The petitioner has no doubt filed such affidavit but the issue is as to whether the same satisfies the requirement. At the outset, it is seen that it is not in the same format of Form No. 25 as there is no affirmation with regard to averments made as per the knowledge of the petitioner and those averments made based on information. The initial of the first respondent is not correctly mentioned. Even in that light, if it is held to be in substantial compliance and if the defects are treated as curable defects, the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is about the date mentioned and the affidavit being sworn before Notary on 07.06.2013, while the petition and the verification thereto is dated 10.06.2013. This in my opinion will have to be looked at as a total non-compliance with the provision of Section 83 of RP Act. The allegation of committing corrupt practice is a serious allegation and it is in that view, it is to be verified by an affidavit since the proviso to Section 83 of RP Act requires that that the petition is to be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice. Hence, the averments made in the petition is required to be verified on solemn affirmation. 9. If that be the position, the petitioner as a deponent to such affidavit will necessarily have to be aware of the contents in the specific paragraphs in the petition and swear to the correctness of the same either based on his personal knowledge or if based on information, the source of such information etc. In such situation, the date contained in the election petition and the date in the affidavit will assume significance. The petition and the affidavit will have to be contemporaneous or in the least the swearing of the affidavit should be subsequent to the date of the petition so as to verify and affirm the averments in the petition. The petition which is subsequent to the date of the affidavit is no petition in the eye of law as the averments relating to corrupt practice are not verified and affirmed by an affidavit as required by law. The petition which is subsequent to the date of the affidavit is no petition in the eye of law as the averments relating to corrupt practice are not verified and affirmed by an affidavit as required by law. Despite the said contention being raised by the respondents, the petitioner did not seek to rectify the same but sought to justify the petition as being in compliance and as such permitting an opportunity to rectify the same at this stage also does not arise. The benefit of the decision relied on in that regard and noticed supra will enure to the petitioner only insofar as the affidavit filed as provided under the CPC as it is held that it is not a requirement and not to the affidavit required under the provisions of the RP Act. Such unverified petition without an appropriate affidavit is therefore liable to be rejected as there is total non-compliance of the requirement and the petition cannot be construed as a valid petition. 10. The next question for consideration is as to whether the petition is liable to be rejected on the ground that the averments do not make out cause of action. To consider this aspect, it is to be noticed that the corrupt practice as alleged by the petitioner in this petition is as provided in Section 123(4) of the RP Act, wherein the corrupt practice stated is as follows: "(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election." 11. In that light, the bare perusal of the case as put forth by the petitioner will disclose that there is no material produced to contend that an explicit false statement has been made by the first respondent or his agent in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of the petitioner's candidature. In that light, the bare perusal of the case as put forth by the petitioner will disclose that there is no material produced to contend that an explicit false statement has been made by the first respondent or his agent in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of the petitioner's candidature. The contention however is that the pamphlets printed for propaganda by the first respondent contains the photograph of the petitioner in the second line (third photograph among other photographs) and it is not in the nature of an appeal made by the petitioner with his solo photograph. The allegation however is that this has been done to depict as if the petitioner is also supporting the first respondent who was the Congress party candidate, despite the first respondent being aware that the petitioner had resigned from the Congress party and was contesting against the first respondent as an independent candidate. 12. When the allegation of corrupt practice is outlined in such fashion and there is no statement to that effect in the pamphlet but is based only on one of the photographs being that of the petitioner among the photographs of the galaxy of Congress leaders, the onus is heavy on the petitioner to plead the facts relating to the same to indicate that not only the first respondent or his agent had approved the printing of the pamphlets, but it will also have to be pleaded that they had approved the inclusion of the petitioner's photograph and all this had designedly been done to project that the petitioner who had a clout and would garner substantial votes had withdrawn from the contest and is supporting the first respondent. To find out as to whether the petitioner has made this effort so as to indicate that the material facts has been pleaded, it would be necessary to not only refer to the averments as contained in the petition but also to take note as to whether the factual position has been pleaded since the learned counsel for the first respondent has contended that the averments are contrary to the factual position depicted in the document based on which the pleading has been raised. 13. 13. As noticed, the fact that the petitioner's photograph is seen as the third photograph in the second row along with the photographs of several other leaders of the Congress party as seen in Annexure-4 is evident, but it is not so conspicuous. The perusal of the same indicates that the names of the persons who have published the same has been printed in the pamphlet, which does not include the name of the first respondent or that of his agent who has made the payment for the same. In an attempt to attribute knowledge to the first respondent, the petitioner in paragraph14 of the petition has averred that the list of nominations had already been finalized and the petitioner's name was at Sl.No.12 and despite the same the first respondent, in the meeting of the Congress Committee conducted on 22.04.2013 gave consent for publication of the pamphlets. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, as per the case of the petitioner he has resigned from the Congress party and in such circumstance when the petitioner alleges that in the meeting of the Congress party held on 22.04.2013, the first respondent has approved the same so as to attribute knowledge to the first respondent, the material facts relating to the basis for such assumption of the petitioner and as to whether such approval of the pamphlet was one of the subjects in the meeting and if so, was it approved by the first respondent despite being aware that the petitioner's photograph would also be printed should have been averred with at least the basic details so that the first respondent could meet such contention and same could have gone to trial as a triable issue. But, except for the allegation, the material facts are not pleaded. 14. The further details constituting material facts as indicated is necessary, when this is also examined in the light of the averments made in paragraph-19 wherein the petitioner has referred to the complaint made by him and the reply issued by the first respondent to the Model Code of Conduct Officer (MCC) wherein the first respondent has stated that the photograph was printed without his knowledge. To controvert the same, the petitioner has once again referred to the Congress committee meeting dated 22.04.2013 and alleged that the first respondent has given specific consent but such averment is without material facts to substantiate such averment. 15. Though the petitioner has stated with regard to the expenditure incurred for printing being accounted to the first respondent's election account, the further averments in paragraph-23 which relates to that aspect is not a true reflection of the factual contents in the letter dated 30.04.2013 addressed by the proprietor of Venupriya printers who had printed the pamphlets in question. The letter at Annexure-14 indicates that the printer has stated that the Municipality members had requested for printing the pamphlets but the receipt has been issued in the name of Sri. T.M. Raju, the election agent of the first respondent as it relates to the election expenditure. But it has been represented by the petitioner in paragraph-23 of the petition as if the bill and the pamphlets were handed over to the election agent of the first respondent so as to attribute knowledge to the agent and such misrepresentation of fact contrary to the document is liable to be struck off and if that be so, there would be no pleading to attribute knowledge to the agent of the first respondent. But, even without striking off, if the misrepresentation is noticed and if in that background the averment in paragraph-24 is perused in its correct perspective as found in the letter, the knowledge attributed to the first respondent based on the earlier averments would appear bald and without material facts, let alone the material particulars for proving such allegations. Further, in paragraph-15 also there is no specific details of such misrepresentation being made with the knowledge and consent of the first respondent or his agent. 16. That apart, the averment in paragraph-21 though is attributing the conduct of inclusion of the petitioner's photograph to garner the votes of the persons belonging to the Lingayat community, in effect it exposes the petitioner of banking on a particular community for his success in the election and appealing for votes in that manner which in itself is a corrupt practice. Be that as it may, the said averment, except making a bald allegation and projecting the petitioner as a leader of the Lingayat community does not disclose any material particulars as to whether there were no other candidate who belonged to that community even if the petitioner was projected as if he was not in the fray and his community votes was solicited by the petitioner on that basis. If there were other candidates of that community, then the basis for the petitioner to assume that the entire population of that community would have voted for him but for the objectionable pamphlets depicting his photograph is also without any material facts being pleaded relating to the voting pattern when the petitioner is a person who has secured only 415 votes. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents are only defense available to the respondent to be considered ultimately, this Court has already noticed the law enunciated that the bare perusal of the pleading itself without reference to the defense will have to on its own strength make out a triable case and depict the cause of action and it is in that light the case as put forth is noticed. 17. In that view, even if the petition is not dissected and even the paragraphs as sought by the first respondent to be deleted is not deleted, but if the petition as it exists at present is read as a whole, it does not disclose the material facts to indicate cause of action for a petition in the nature of the allegations made towards corrupt practice stated in Section 123(4) of the RP Act. I am of the said opinion for the reason that even if the pamphlet indicating the photograph of the petitioner is in existence and the averment to that extent is accepted to be factually correct, except for referring to the sequence of events that have taken place, there is no material facts pleaded relating to misrepresentation about the petitioner supporting the first respondent nor is there material to show that the photograph is printed with the knowledge and consent of the first respondent or his agent and the distribution of such pamphlets having resulted in the alteration of the voting pattern. Since the averments are bald and without even the basic material facts or particulars, the same does not raise triable issues so as to devote the public time of this Court based on such allegation and pleading and the election of the first respondent cannot be treated lightly. In fact the petition does not raise any triable issue even without striking out any portion of the pleading as sought by the first respondent. When no cause of action is forthcoming relating to corrupt practice alleged against the first respondent who is the elected candidate, the allegation against the second respondent also would not arise in the nature of the pleading made in that regard when the basis for the petition is of corrupt practice. 18. For all the aforestated reasons, the following – ORDER (i) I.A. Nos. 1 of 2013 and 4 of 2013, both filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC are allowed. (ii) Consequently, E.P. No. 2 of 2013 stands rejected. (iii) I.A. No. 1 of 2014 filed under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC is disposed of as unnecessary in the circumstances. (iv) The parties to bear their own costs.