Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32824 (CHH)

SADHNA SINGH v. J. LALITA

WP227/609/2025 · 2025-07-06

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:30785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 609 of 2025  Sadhna Singh W/o Shri Mukesh Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Quarter No. 14/a, Road No.5, Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg, C.G ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. J. Lalita W/o Shri J.Shriniwas Rao Aged About 39 Years R/o Quarter No. 16/c, Road No. 15/b, Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg, C.G 2. District Electoral Officer Through The Collector, Durg, District Durg, C.G 3. Returning Officer Returning Officer Municipal Corporation, Bhilai Local Body, Municipal Corporation, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G 4. P. Jogeshwari Quarter No. 3/e, Road No.10, Sector-6, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G 5. Nutan Sahu W/o Shri Vishnu Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Quarter No. 3/d, Road No. 15, Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg, C.G 6. Smt. Sahnaaz W/o Etkhtdar Aged About 34 Years R/o Quarter No. 2/h, Road No. 15a, Sector- 2, Bhilai, District Durg, C.G 7. Smt. Uma Sahu W/o Shri Rupendra Narayan Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o Quarter No. 1/b, Road No. 19, Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg, C.G ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07. 07.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in an Election Petition, application under Section 30 read with Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC was moved before the learned tribunal and that has been rejected. He would further submit that the return candidate/petitioner has not been examined and that SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.07 16:49:08 +0530 2 was the reason for rejection of application. He would contend that the petitioner may be permitted to revive his prayer before the learned tribunal, after examination of the petitioner. 2. The prayer made by Mr. Gupta appears to be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to revive his prayer before the learned tribunal, after examination of the petitioner. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant