1 2026:CGHC:22831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 121 of 2026 1 - Md. Hasan Khan S/o Shri Yasin Khan Aged About 52 Years R/o Sarvoday Gali, Ward No. 40 Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Ward, Mominpura, Nagar Ambikapur, Post Office Ambikapur, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sarfaraz Ahmed Siddique S/o Late Niyaz Ahmed Siddique Aged About 57 Years R/o Near Baba Chicken Shop, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Ward No. 40, Mominpura, Nagar And Post Office Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Abdul Rashid @ Rashid Painter S/o Late Abdul Hafiz Aged About 65 Years R/o Rashid Painter Gali, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Ward No. 40, Mohalla Mominpura, Nagar Ambikapur, Post Office Ambikapur, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nitin Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Gupta Aged About 25 Years R/o Sarvoday Gali Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Ward No. 40, Mominpura, Nagar Ambikapur And Mahamaya Road, Near Flour Mill, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Atif Husain S/o Gulab Ahmed Aged About 22 Years R/o Sarvoday Gali, Ward No. 40, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Ward, Mominpura, Nagar Ambikapur, Post Office Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.05.15 17:11:42 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. Heard. 2. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the learned Second District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Election Petition No.52/2025 (Sarfaraz Ahmed Siddique vs. Mo. Hasan Khan and Others), whereby an application filed by the petitioner (defendant No.1 therein) under Section 441 (3)(4)(अ)(इ) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1956”) read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1, namely Sarfaraz Ahmed Siddique (applicant therein), filed the aforesaid election petition raising various grounds seeking a declaration that the election of petitioner (defendant No.1 therein) to the post of Councilor of the concerned Ward be declared void, and further seeking a declaration that respondent No.1 be declared elected in place of petitioner. 4. The petitioner (defendant No.1 therein), who was elected as Councilor of Ward No.40 of the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, filed an application under Section 441 (3)(4)(अ)(इ) 3 of the Act, 1956 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Learned Second District Judge, Ambikapur, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, rejected the said application, which has been challenged in instant revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant No.1 therein) would submit that the petitioner has filed the aforesaid application on three grounds, i.e., (i) the election petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties; (ii) the election petition is barred by limitation; and (iii) the affidavit contemplated under proviso to Section 83 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 1951”) has not been filed. He would further submit that he is not pressing on first two grounds relating to non-joinder of necessary parties and limitation, and confines his arguments only to the issue regarding non-filing of affidavit by respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the proviso to Section 83 (1) of the Act, 1951 specifically provides that if allegations of corrupt practices are levelled in an election petition, then it be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed format in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. However, no such affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1 -Sarfarz Ahmed Siddique (applicant therein). Despite that, learned Second District Judge, Ambikapur has rejected the application filed by the petitioner, which is against the aforesaid law. Hence, he prays that this revision petition may be admitted for hearing. 4 6. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, since he is not pressing on two grounds relating to non-joinder of necessary parties and barred by limitation, therefore those grounds raised in application are not being considered by this Court. The arguments are confined only on the ground that respondent No.1 has not filed affidavit as contemplated in proviso to Section 83 (1) of the Act, 1951. 7. Section 441 of the Act, 1956 provides the provision regarding filing of election petition relating to election of Municipal Corporation and specifies the persons entitled to file such petition. Section 441-B of the said Act provides the grounds for declaring elections or (nomination) to be void. However, the Act, 1956 does not provide any specific provision that in support of ground raised challenging election ought to have been supported by affidavit, as per the proviso to Section 83 (1) of the Act, 1951. 8. The Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 is a special enactment which deals with the provisions pertaining to challenging the election or nomination of Councilors and Mayors. Since the said Act neither provides for filing of an affidavit as contemplated under the proviso to Section 83 (1) of the Act, 1951, nor contains any provision making the provisions of the Act, 1951 applicable, as also conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner, then non- filing of such an affidavit by respondent No.1 (applicant therein), in light of proviso to Section 83 (1) of the Act, 1951, is not found to 5 be a reason for dismissal of the election petition filed before the learned trial Court. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant revision petition, hence, the same is dismissed at motion stage. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar