Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1688 (ALL)

Sheelu Devi v. Uttara Devi

2017-07-19

ANIL KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar, J. Heard Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri A.Z. Siddiqui, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as Sri Anil Kr. Chaubey, learned State counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 & 8 and perused the record. 2. Notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 & 9 are dispensed with. 3. Facts in brief of the present case are that an election for electing Gram Pradhan of Village Panchayat Majhiya Block Hariyawa Tehsil & district Hardoi has held in which the petitioner has been declared successful. 4. Aggrieved by the said facts, respondent No. 1/Smt. Uttaradevi has filed an election petition in which respondent Nos. 2 to 6 who are the other candidates in the election are impleaded as formal parties, before respondent No. 7/Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Election Authority, Hardoi under Section 12(c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 22.12.2015 in which she has moved an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 11.08.2016 to which petitioner filed her objection on 19.08.2016, rejected by order dated 19.08.2016. Thereafter, again respondent No. 1/Smt. Uttaradevi moved a second application for amendment on 19.05.2017 to which petitioner filed an objection inter alia taking a ground that on the same cause of action, second application for amendment is not maintainable, however, the same was allowed by order dated 30.05.2017 passed by respondent No. 7, challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision before respondent No. 9/District Judge, Hardoi, rejected by order dated 03.07.2017. In view of the said factual background, present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that once the respondent No. 1/Smt. Uttaradevi filed the election petition in which she has moved an application for amendment and the same was rejected, the second application on the same cause of action is not maintainable. 6. After arguing at some length, the same is opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/Smt. Uttaradevi, Sri A.Z. Siddiqui that the second amendment application moved by respondent No. 1/Smt. Uttaradevi is maintainable on the same cause of action. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 8. 6. After arguing at some length, the same is opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/Smt. Uttaradevi, Sri A.Z. Siddiqui that the second amendment application moved by respondent No. 1/Smt. Uttaradevi is maintainable on the same cause of action. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 8. The sole question which is to be considered in the present case at this stage is to the effect that once the application is moved by respondent No. 1/Smt. Uttaradevi in an election petition under Section 12(3) of the Act and the same was rejected, the second application on the same cause of action is maintainable or not. 9. Answer to the said question finds place in the judgment given by this Court in the case of Laxmi Devi v. Chandramani Devi, AIR 1971 All 506 , wherein this Court held that once the appreciation for amendment has been rejected, the second application for the said purpose is not maintainable. 10. In the instant case, from the perusal of the material on record, it is clearly apparent that first application moved by the petitioner for amendment has already been rejected by order dated 19.08.2016 and the same has not been challenged, so the second application on the same cause of action moved on behalf of respondent No. 1/Smt. Uttaradevi is not maintainable. 11. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure No. 1) passed by respondent No. 7 and order dated 03.07.2017 (Annexure No. 2) passed by respondent No. 9 are set aside. 12. With the above observations, writ petition is allowed.