RSA-1554-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ramphal Returning Officer CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. (Legal Aid Counsel) DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The appellant decree dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Karnal, whereby the appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, dismissing his suit, has also been 2. The plaintiff had instituted the suit claiming damages on account of rejection of his nomination papers in the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from Assandh Assembly Constituency. His case was that the rejection of his nominati proceedings earlier instituted before this Court, his counsel had, allegedly without his consent, withdrawn the writ petition, whereupon liberty was granted to avail the remedy of an electio election remedy, instituted the present civil suit for damages. 3. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the grievance regarding rejection of nomination papers could be agi election petition and could not be made the subject matter of a civil suit. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaganath v. K.S. Rathnam and others Court has affirmed the said conclusion. 2026 (O&M) Page N: 1 of Total 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: Versus Returning Officer-cum-SDO (Civil) and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the appellant (Legal Aid Counsel) **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The appellant-plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Karnal, whereby the appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, dismissing his suit, has also been dismissed. The plaintiff had instituted the suit claiming damages on account of rejection of his nomination papers in the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from Assandh Assembly Constituency. His case was that the rejection of his nomination papers was illegal and actuated by mala fides and that, in the proceedings earlier instituted before this Court, his counsel had, allegedly without his consent, withdrawn the writ petition, whereupon liberty was granted to avail the remedy of an election petition. The plaintiff, instead of pursuing the election remedy, instituted the present civil suit for damages. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the grievance regarding rejection of nomination papers could be agi election petition and could not be made the subject matter of a civil suit. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in nath v. K.S. Rathnam and others, (2004) 7 SCC 492. ffirmed the said conclusion. 3 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1554-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 ...Appellant ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA appellant. plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Karnal, whereby the appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, The plaintiff had instituted the suit claiming damages on account of rejection of his nomination papers in the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from Assandh Assembly Constituency. His case was that the rejection on papers was illegal and actuated by mala fides and that, in the proceedings earlier instituted before this Court, his counsel had, allegedly without his consent, withdrawn the writ petition, whereupon liberty was granted n petition. The plaintiff, instead of pursuing the election remedy, instituted the present civil suit for damages. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the grievance regarding rejection of nomination papers could be agitated only in an election petition and could not be made the subject matter of a civil suit. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manda , (2004) 7 SCC 492. The first Appellate s plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Karnal, whereby the appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, The plaintiff had instituted the suit claiming damages on account of rejection of his nomination papers in the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from Assandh Assembly Constituency. His case was that the rejection on papers was illegal and actuated by mala fides and that, in the proceedings earlier instituted before this Court, his counsel had, allegedly without his consent, withdrawn the writ petition, whereupon liberty was granted n petition. The plaintiff, instead of pursuing the The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the tated only in an election petition and could not be made the subject matter of a civil suit. Manda The first Appellate YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.03 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1554-2026 (O&M) 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the plaintiff and that the suit was one for damages arising from the alleged illegal acts of the respondents therefore, ought not to have been dismissed merely by treating it as an election dispute. 5. I have considered the submissions. 6. The scope of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well settled. A second appeal can be e case involves a substantial question of law. The High Court is not expected to reassess the evidence or interfere with concurrent findings merely because another view on the facts is possible. The Supreme Court has reiterated that existence of a substantial question of law is the sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. 7. In the present case, no such question arises. The foundation of the plaintiff's claim is the alleged illegal rejection of his nomina validity of such rejection is a matter falling within the election The first Appellate Court has noticed that the plaintiff had earlier approached this Court and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to avail the re of an election petition. Despite the same, no election petition was pursued and the present civil suit was instituted for damages. 8. The distinction sought to be drawn by learned counsel between a direct challenge to rejection of nomination and a c damages does not, in the facts of the present case, give rise to any substantial question of law. The claim for damages cannot be examined in isolation from the foundational allegation that the rejection of the nomination papers was Unless the alleged illegality in the electoral process is legally established through the remedy prescribed by law, a consequential claim founded upon that very alleged illegality cannot be used to circumvent the statutory election remedy. 9. Th (supra), therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law warranting interference in second appeal. The first Appellate Court has also recorded that 2026 (O&M) Page N: 2 of Total 3 Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the plaintiff and that the suit was one for damages arising from the alleged illegal acts of the respondents therefore, ought not to have been dismissed merely by treating it as an election I have considered the submissions. The scope of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well settled. A second appeal can be e case involves a substantial question of law. The High Court is not expected to reassess the evidence or interfere with concurrent findings merely because another view on the facts is possible. The Supreme Court has reiterated that existence of a substantial question of law is the sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. In the present case, no such question arises. The foundation of the plaintiff's claim is the alleged illegal rejection of his nomina validity of such rejection is a matter falling within the election The first Appellate Court has noticed that the plaintiff had earlier approached this Court and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to avail the re of an election petition. Despite the same, no election petition was pursued and the present civil suit was instituted for damages. The distinction sought to be drawn by learned counsel between a direct challenge to rejection of nomination and a c damages does not, in the facts of the present case, give rise to any substantial question of law. The claim for damages cannot be examined in isolation from the foundational allegation that the rejection of the nomination papers was Unless the alleged illegality in the electoral process is legally established through the remedy prescribed by law, a consequential claim founded upon that very alleged illegality cannot be used to circumvent the statutory election remedy. The reliance placed by the Courts below , therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law warranting interference in second appeal. The first Appellate Court has also recorded that 3 Pages Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the plaintiff and that the suit was one for damages arising from the alleged illegal acts of the respondents and, therefore, ought not to have been dismissed merely by treating it as an election I have considered the submissions. The scope of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well settled. A second appeal can be entertained only when the case involves a substantial question of law. The High Court is not expected to reassess the evidence or interfere with concurrent findings merely because another view on the facts is possible. The Supreme Court has reiterated that existence of a substantial question of law is the sine qua non for exercise of In the present case, no such question arises. The foundation of the plaintiff's claim is the alleged illegal rejection of his nomination papers. The validity of such rejection is a matter falling within the election-law mechanism. The first Appellate Court has noticed that the plaintiff had earlier approached this Court and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to avail the remedy of an election petition. Despite the same, no election petition was pursued and the present civil suit was instituted for damages. The distinction sought to be drawn by learned counsel between a direct challenge to rejection of nomination and a claim for consequential damages does not, in the facts of the present case, give rise to any substantial question of law. The claim for damages cannot be examined in isolation from the foundational allegation that the rejection of the nomination papers was illegal. Unless the alleged illegality in the electoral process is legally established through the remedy prescribed by law, a consequential claim founded upon that very alleged illegality cannot be used to circumvent the statutory election remedy. e reliance placed by the Courts below is upon Manda Jagannath , therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law warranting interference in second appeal. The first Appellate Court has also recorded that Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the plaintiff and that the suit was and, therefore, ought not to have been dismissed merely by treating it as an election The scope of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil ntertained only when the case involves a substantial question of law. The High Court is not expected to reassess the evidence or interfere with concurrent findings merely because another view on the facts is possible. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the existence of a substantial question of law is the sine qua non for exercise of In the present case, no such question arises. The foundation of the tion papers. The law mechanism. The first Appellate Court has noticed that the plaintiff had earlier approached medy of an election petition. Despite the same, no election petition was pursued and The distinction sought to be drawn by learned counsel between a laim for consequential damages does not, in the facts of the present case, give rise to any substantial question of law. The claim for damages cannot be examined in isolation from the illegal. Unless the alleged illegality in the electoral process is legally established through the remedy prescribed by law, a consequential claim founded upon that very alleged illegality cannot be used to circumvent the statutory election remedy. Manda Jagannath , therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law warranting interference in second appeal. The first Appellate Court has also recorded that YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.03 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1554-2026 (O&M) the trial Court had afforded due opport that the plaintiff examined four witnesses, while the respondents examined two witnesses. Nevertheless, the Courts below found the suit itself to be legally untenable on the basis of the nature of the relief claime scheme governing election disputes. 10. The appellant cannot convert the present second appeal into a further appeal on facts by contending that the evidence has not been properly appreciated. Even assuming that some factual aspect of regarding the conduct of the respondents was not examined in detail, such exercise would not alter the fundamental legal position regarding the nature of the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff. 11. It is also significan further reason for dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation. The appeal before that Court was instituted on 29.11.2025 against the judgment dated 09.10.2025 and the application for condonation of d since the dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability is independently sustainable in law, it is unnecessary for this Court, in the present second appeal, to enter into the correctness of the said additional reasoning 12. Thus, the concurrent conclusion of the Courts below that the present suit, founded upon the alleged illegal rejection of the nomination papers, was not maintainable, does not disclose any perversity, jurisdictional error or substantial question of legal position governing election disputes. 13. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. 14. Pending mi 02.09.2026 Yogesh Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2026 (O&M) Page N: 3 of Total 3 the trial Court had afforded due opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and that the plaintiff examined four witnesses, while the respondents examined two witnesses. Nevertheless, the Courts below found the suit itself to be legally untenable on the basis of the nature of the relief claime scheme governing election disputes. The appellant cannot convert the present second appeal into a further appeal on facts by contending that the evidence has not been properly appreciated. Even assuming that some factual aspect of regarding the conduct of the respondents was not examined in detail, such exercise would not alter the fundamental legal position regarding the nature of the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff. It is also significant that the first Appellate Court has recorded a further reason for dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation. The appeal before that Court was instituted on 29.11.2025 against the judgment dated 09.10.2025 and the application for condonation of d since the dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability is independently sustainable in law, it is unnecessary for this Court, in the present second appeal, to enter into the correctness of the said additional reasoning Thus, the concurrent conclusion of the Courts below that the present suit, founded upon the alleged illegal rejection of the nomination papers, was not maintainable, does not disclose any perversity, jurisdictional error or substantial question of law. The findings are based upon the pleadings and the legal position governing election disputes. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 3 Pages unity to the parties to lead evidence and that the plaintiff examined four witnesses, while the respondents examined two witnesses. Nevertheless, the Courts below found the suit itself to be legally untenable on the basis of the nature of the relief claimed and the statutory The appellant cannot convert the present second appeal into a further appeal on facts by contending that the evidence has not been properly appreciated. Even assuming that some factual aspect of the plaintiff's allegations regarding the conduct of the respondents was not examined in detail, such exercise would not alter the fundamental legal position regarding the nature of t that the first Appellate Court has recorded a further reason for dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation. The appeal before that Court was instituted on 29.11.2025 against the judgment dated 09.10.2025 and the application for condonation of delay was declined. However, since the dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability is independently sustainable in law, it is unnecessary for this Court, in the present second appeal, to enter into the correctness of the said additional reasoning. Thus, the concurrent conclusion of the Courts below that the present suit, founded upon the alleged illegal rejection of the nomination papers, was not maintainable, does not disclose any perversity, jurisdictional error or law. The findings are based upon the pleadings and the No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. scellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No unity to the parties to lead evidence and that the plaintiff examined four witnesses, while the respondents examined two witnesses. Nevertheless, the Courts below found the suit itself to be legally d and the statutory The appellant cannot convert the present second appeal into a further appeal on facts by contending that the evidence has not been properly the plaintiff's allegations regarding the conduct of the respondents was not examined in detail, such exercise would not alter the fundamental legal position regarding the nature of t that the first Appellate Court has recorded a further reason for dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation. The appeal before that Court was instituted on 29.11.2025 against the judgment dated elay was declined. However, since the dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability is independently sustainable in law, it is unnecessary for this Court, in the present second appeal, Thus, the concurrent conclusion of the Courts below that the present suit, founded upon the alleged illegal rejection of the nomination papers, was not maintainable, does not disclose any perversity, jurisdictional error or law. The findings are based upon the pleadings and the No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the scellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.03 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document