1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 228 of 2025 Judgment Reserved On : 05.02.2026. Judgment Delivered On : 09.04.2026. Narendra Kumar Banjara S/o Rajkumar Banjara Aged About 28 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Achanakpur, Gram Panchayat Jhaliyapur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, C.G (Non Applicant No.1 before the trial Court). ... Applicant. Versus 1 - Presiding Officer Polling Booth No. 299, Achanakpur, Gram Panchayat Jhaliyapur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, C.G. 2 - Presiding Officer Polling Booth No. 298, Village Jhaliyapur, Gram Panchayat Jhaliyapur, Tahsil And District Mungeli CG. 3 - Ashok Kumar Patre S/o Tularam Patre Aged About 40 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Achanakpur, Gram Panchayat Jhaliyapur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, C.G. (Petitioner before the trial Court). 4 - Nakul Kurre S/o Phaguram Kurre Caste Satnami R/o Village Tengapara, Gram Panchayat Jhaliyapur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, C.G. ... Respondents. For Applicant : Shri Ankur Diwan, Advocate. For State/Res. : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy AG. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Aniket Verma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.13 20:01:13 +0530 2 1. This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh whereby application preferred by the Non-applicant No.1/applicant herein under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code1 has been dismissed and the petitioner/Respondent No.3 herein was directed to implead party in accordance with law as also order dated 30.07.2025 by way of which, petitioner/Respondent No.3 herein impleaded Respondent No.4 namely Nakul Kurre as party to the election petition. 2. Applicant way of this Civil Revision has prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to allow this instant civil revision & quash the order dated 21.07.2025 & 30.07.2025 & entire proceedings in Case No. A-89(21)/202503250100043, Ashok Kumar Patre Vs Narendra Kumar Banjara & allow the application under order 7 rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice and any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also please be granted to the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.2025, respondent no.3 contested the election for the post of Sarpanch at Gram Panchayat Jhaliyapur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli, CG, having election symbol "Chasma Chaap". The Applicant & respondent no. 3 contested the election for the post of Sarpanch. The applicant won the election for the post of Sarpanch at Gram Panchayat Jhaliyapur. Respondent no. 3 filed an election petition on 11.03.2025 before the SDO(Revenue), Mungeli District 1 CPC 3 Mungeli C.G., stating that the election for the post of Sarpanch was concluded on 17.02.2025, in which he also contested & after the counting of votes, the applicant received 458 votes & the respondent no.3 also received 458 votes & the applicant was declared as the winning candidate. It was also averted in the petition that nearly 18 ballot papers which was in favour of the respondent no. 3 has been rejected by the respondent no. 1 & 2, in an illegal manner & hence, the respondent no. 3 filed an application before the SDO (Revenue) for recounting of the votes on 21.02.2025, in which no action has been taken by the said Authority. It was also mentioned in the petition that the applicant & respondent no. 3 has received equal number of votes & on the basis of lottery system, the applicant was declared winner. It was also averred in the petition that the respondent no. 3 had earlier preferred a writ petition registered as WPC No. 1276/2025, Ashok Kumar Patre Vs CG State Election Commission, in which this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 07.03.2025, has ordered the SDO (Revenue), Mungeli to decide the application in accordance with law & hence, the respondent no.3 filed an election petition under section 122 of CG Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam for recounting of the votes at Polling Booth No. 298 Jhaliyapur & Polling Booth No. 299 Achankapur. SDO (Revenue), registered the same as Case No. A-89(21)/202503250100043 & notices were issued. Respondent no. 1 submitted its reply to the application denying the contentions of the respondent no.3. On 29.05.2025, the applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, stating that the 4 respondent no. 4 Nakul Kurrey, has also contested the election for the post of Sarpanch, but has not been made a party to the election petition, who is a necessary party to the Election Petition, hence, the Election Petition ought to be dismissed, as Rule 4 of the CG Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) reads as: Parties to the Petition: Where the petitioner in addition to claiming a declaration that the election, of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected he shall join as respondents to his petition all the contesting candidates at the election. Thus, in the instant case, the respondent no. 4 was not made a party to the election petition. 4. Further, Rule 8 of the CG Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) reads as: Procedure on receiving Petition: If the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 has not been complied with, the petition, shall be dismissed by the specified officers: provided that the petition shall not be dismissed under this rule without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 5. Thus, in the instant case, respondent no. 4 was not made a party to the election petition & hence, under rule 8 of the 1995 Rules, the election petition ought to be dismissed & hence, application under order 7 rule 11 CPC has been filed. 6. Also, Order 1 Rule 9 CPC reads as: 5 No Suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjonder or non-joinder of parties & the court may in every suit deal with the controversy so far as regards the rights & interests of the parties actually before it. Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party. 7. Thus, in the election petition filed by the respondent no. 3, respondent no. 4 also contested the election for the post of Sarpanch at Gram Panchayat Jhaliyapur & was not made a party to the election petition, being a necessary party & hence, the election petition ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. On 26.06.2025, the respondent no. 3 submitted its reply to the application under order 7 rule 11 CPC stating that respondent no. 4 is not a necessary party to the election petition. On 21.07.2025, the applicant also filed written submissions before the SDO (Revenue) relying about the judgment delivered in 2023 MPWN No. 87 & 1988 Vidhi Bhaskar Part 2 Page 225 Harishankar Suryawanshi Vs State of MP, praying for dismissal of the election petition on the ground of not adding respondent no. 4. On 21.07.2025, the SDO (Revenue) has ordered to add the respondent no. 4 Nakul Kurrey, S/o Phaguram Kurrey as a party to the election petition & in its vague & illegal order has mentioned that the application filed by the applicant(respondent no.1 in election petition) is allowed & directed the respondent no.4 to add party Nakul Kurrey. On 30.07.2025, in compliance of the order dated 21.07.2025, Nakul Kurrey has been made a party to the election petition & notice was issued to him. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2025 (dismissal of application under order 7 rule 11 CPC filed 6 by the applicant) & 30.07.2025 & the further proceedings of the election petition, wherein the respondent no. 4 has been made a party to the election petition, despite the objection regarding non-joinder of a necessary party to the petition & hence, the election petition ought to be dismissed on this ground alone & also vide order dated 21.07.2025, the SDO (Revenue) has mentioned that the application filed by the applicant under order 7 rule 11 CPC is allowed & thereafter, ordered to add Nakul Kurrey as a party to the election petition. Also, the applicant is challenging the complete proceedings of the Election petition, as the same being not maintainable under rule 4 & 8 of the CG Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules 1995, as under Rule 8, the petition shall be dismissed if the provisions under rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 has not been complied with & hence, the applicant filed an application under order 7 rule 11 CPC which was dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2025. Hence this Civil Revision. 8. Hence this Civil Revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant/Non-Applicant No.1 before the trial Court submits that SDO (Revenue), Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G. while passing the impugned order should have considered the fact that in application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC it was contended that Respondent No.4 also contested the election to be elected as Sarpanch who become necessary party to the election petition, however, he was not made party to the election petition, as such, the election petition preferred by the Respondent No.3 ought to have been dismissed being non- 7 maintainable under the provisions of Rule 8 of C.G. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 19952. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties & the Court may in every suit deal with the controversy so far as regards the rights & interests of the parties actually before it. Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party. Thus, as in the election petition filed by Respondent No.3, Respondent No.4 also contested the election to be elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jhaliyapur and was not made party, therefore, the election petition ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Rule 4 of the Rules, 1995 provides for Parties to the Petition wherein it has been stipulated that where the petitioner in addition to claiming a declaration that the election, of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected he shall join as respondents to his petition all the contesting candidates at the election. 11.Since in the instant case, Respondent No.4 was not made party to the election petition, the election petition ought to have dismissed and application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ought to be allowed. 12.Learned State counsel submits that Rule 4 of Rules, 1995 provides for as to who shall be made party to the election petition. In the event of election 2 the Rules, 1995 8 petitioner claims himself or any other candidate to be declared as returned candidate, then the election petitioner requires to implead all contesting candidates. However, in case, the election petitioner does not claim relief for himself or any other candidate to be elected as elected candidate then only the returned candidate is to be made party to the election petition. 13.Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that Rule 25 of the Rules, 1995 specifically reads out that the decisions of the specified officer shall be final, meaning thereby, once the election petition is heard and order being passed, the same would be final and no recourse to appeal or revision or review has been provided under the said Rules. Although, aggrieved person can approach this Court under writ jurisdiction provided a specific pleadings as to violation of some fundamental or legal right would be a sine qua non for entertaining such a petition. 14.Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 further submits that when the present respondent preferred an election petition under Section 122 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 19933 and did not implead Respondent No.4 as party respondent. The present applicant who is one of the respondents before the election petition proceedings moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC instead of moving a simple objection for the raising the issue of non-joinder of parties. The said application was heard and was rejected and the Respondent No.3 impleaded Respondent No.4 as party respondent thereby resolving the grievance of the applicant. 15.Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that applicant has preferred 3 the adhiniyam, 1993 9 this Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC against the rejection of his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in an election petition which is governed under a specific body of enacted rules. The present civil revision is firstly barred by Rule 25 of the Rules, 1995. Secondly, the sole purpose of Rule 11 is to be a guiding procedure for competent authority to run the business of its Court while adjudicating election petitions, by no stretch of imagination it means the application of CPC in its actual length and breadth. 16.Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 further submits that analogy of the applicant can not be accepted as, supposing if the entire CPC would govern the proceedings before SDO under Section 122 of the adhiniyam, 1993 then against the final order a first appeal would also lie under Section 96, and against that first appeal, a second appeal under Section 100 would also lie under CPC. Therefore, a civil revision under Section 115 of CPC against rejection of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in an election petition under Section 115 of CPC would not lie and is thus not maintainable in this present form. 17. Counsel for Respondent No.3 placed reliance in the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Satya Narayan Vs Additional Commissioner (W.P. No. 8260/2006 decided on 26/09/2007) has ruled that: "Since special, specific and distinct rules have been framed for filing an election petition u/s 122 of the Act, therefore, neither Section 91 of the Act providing for an appeal nor the 10 M.P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, have any application to an order passed by the Specified Authority. A perusal of Rule 25 of the Election Petition Rules further shows that the orders/decisions of the Specified Authority are final. If the contention raised by Shri Sethi were to be accepted, it would not only be against the spirit of the Rules and the Act but shall also create an additional forum for the winning candidate/election Petitioner, to challenge the orders passed by the Specified Authority in an election petition, by raising challenge before the State Government. The intention of the Act and Rules is clear, when it provides for finality of the decision taken by the Specified Authority. The order passed by the Specified Authority and any decision taken in the election petition, can only be challenged by an aggrieved party by approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 18.While concluding his arguments, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that this Civil Revision is not maintainable and the applicant ought to have taken recourse under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, this Civil Revision deserves to be dismissed. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the revision. 20.The applicant who is a returned candidate has filed this Civil Revision for dismissal of Election Petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that necessary parties have not been impleaded as party to the Election Petition filed under Section 122 of the CG Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam and as such, it is not required to be entertained and liable to be dismissed. 11 21.It has been stated that one Nakul Kurre/ Respondent No.4 herein was also one of the contestants in the election to the post of Sarpanch, however, he was not made party respondent in the Election Petition, therefore, Election Petition is not maintainable. 22. Section 122 of the CG Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 prescribes competent authority for preferring Election Petition which reads as under:- 122. Election petition. (1) An election under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner:- (I) in case of Panchayat to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue); (ii) in case of Janpad Panchayat to the Collector; and (iii)in case of Zila Panchayat to [Director, Panchayat] [Substituted by C.G. Act No. 8 of 2003.] and not otherwise. (2)No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. (3)Such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of according to such procedures as may be prescribed. 23. Rule – 3 of the Rules, 1995 deals with Presentation of election petition, which reads as under:- Rule - 3. Presentation of election petition.- (1) An election Petition shall be presented to the specified Officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorized in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition. (2) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. 12 24. Rule 4 of Rules, 1995 relates to Parties to the petition.- Where the petitioner in addition to claiming a declaration that the election, of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected he shall join as respondents to his petition all the contesting candidates at the election. 25.Rule – 7 of the Rules, 1995 deals with Deposit of security which reads as follows:- Rule - 7. Deposit of security. At the time of presentation of an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the specified officer a sum of Rs. Five Hundred as security. Where the election of more than one candidate is called in question, a separate deposit of an equivalent amount shall be required in respect of each such returned candidates. 26.Rule – 8 of the Rules, 1995 relates to Procedure on receiving petition.- Rule - 8. Procedure on receiving petition.- If provisions of rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition, shall be dismissed by the specified officers; Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed under this rule without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 27.In the case at hand, Applicant is a returned candidate who seeks dismissal of the Election Petition on the ground that the Rule 4 of the Rules, 1955 has not been followed as the necessary party has not been joined in the Election Petition. Applicant contends that one Nakul Kurre/Respondent No.4 who also contested the election to be elected as Sarpanch was not 13 made party respondent, therefore, as per Rule 8 of the Rules, 1955 in non compliance of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1955, the Election Petition is required to be dismissed. 28.From the perusal of record, it appears that necessary party has not been joined as party to the Election Petition. However, it has to be seen whether being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.07.2025, applicant was required to file Civil Revision under Section 115 of the CPC or avail himself of any other remedy available under the law. 29. According to Rule 25 of the Rules, 1995, the decision of the specified officer shall be final as such, order passed by the Specified Officer shall not be taken to any appeal, revision or review. Since the rules of Election and Election Petition are codified and they are complete code, therefore, any other law could not be taken into consideration as a complete code has been provided for challenging an election by way of Election Petition and any order passed by the Specified Officer and any decision taken in the Election Petition can only be challenged by the aggrieved party by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30.It is pertinent to mention here an order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Satya Narayan vs. Additional Commissioner in WP No.8260 of 2006, decided on 26.09.2007 {(2008 (1) MPLJ)}. Relevant paragraphs 5 to 7 reads as under:- 5. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri A. K. Sethi, learned Senior counsel for respondent No. 2 to the effect that since the election petitioner has not challenged two orders 14 viz. orders dated November 3, 2005 and August 21, 2006 passed by the State Government, therefore, the present petition filed by the election petitioner challenging merely the order dated July 26, 2005 is not maintainable. On that basis Shri Sethi has maintained that the original order dated July 26, 2005 stood merged in the later orders dated November 8, 2005 and August 21, 2006 and therefore, in absence of a challenge to the said orders, the original order could not have been challenged. 6. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior counsel. A perusal of section 122 of the Act shows that a complete code has been provided for challenging of an election by way of an election petition. The election petition has to be tried in terms of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. 7. Since special, specific and distinct rules have been framed for filing an election petition under section 122 of the Act, therefore, neither section 91 of the Act providing for an appeal nor the M. P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, have any application to an order passed by the Specified Authority. A perusal of Rule 25 of the Election Petition Rules further shows that the orders/decisions of the Specified Authority are final. If the contention raised by Shri Sethi were to be accepted, it would not only be against the spirit of the Rules and the Act but shall also create an additional forum for the winning candidate/election petitioner, to challenge the orders passed by the Specified Authority in an election petition, by raising a challenge before the State Government. 15 The intention of the Act and Rules is clear, when it provides for finality of the decision taken by the Specified Authority. The order passed by the Specified Authority and any decision taken in the election petition, can only be challenged by an aggrieved party by approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31.In view of the above, the preliminary objection raised by counsel for Respondent No.3 seems to be of some substance to this Court as upon perusal of the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli C.G. under the provision of Section 122 of the CG Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam as also the Rules, 1995, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is required to be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding that it is a rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 32.Though some of the provisions of CPC are applicable to the Election Petition also but since the provisions of Election Petition under the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam is a complete code in itself. therefore, while challenging election by way of an election petition, the order passed by the specified authority can only be challenged by approaching the competent Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the aggrieved person and not under Section 115 of the CPC. 33.In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this Civil Revision under Section 115 of the CPC challening the order dated 21.07.2025 16 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli is not maintainable. 34.Accordingly, this Civil Revision stands dismissed on the ground of being not maintainable. However, applicant is at liberty to question the propriety of impugned order dated 21.07.2025 before the competent Court having appropriate jurisdiction. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 05.02.2026 09.04.2026 ------ 13.04.2026