- (1.) Pursuant to the order dated 6.5.2005, the case is listed today. A perusal of the said order dated 6.5.2005 shows that in view of the fact that pursuant to the order dated 1.4.2005, notices issued by ordinary process as well as by Registered Post A/D were sent to the respondent Nos. 8 and 14 on 3.5.2005 fixing 6.5.2005, it was observed that it was necessary to await service of the said notices, and, accordingly, the case was directed to be listed on 8.7.2005 (i.e., today). Office has submitted its Report dated 8.7.2005 in regard to service of the said notices sent by ordinary process as well as by Registered Post A/D to the respondent Nos. 8 and 14. As regards the notice sent to the respondent No. 8 by Registered Post A/D, the said Office Report shows that the registered envelope containing the said notice has been received back with the following endorsement: Not met. Sd. Illegible 5.5.05. As regards the notice sent to the respondent No. 8 by ordinary process, the said Office Report dated 8.7.2005 refers to the Communication dated 19.5.2005 sent by the District Judge, Farrukhabad to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. A perusal of the said Communication dated 19.5.2005 sent by the District Judge, Farrukhabad shows that as the notice to be served on the respondent No. 8 was received on 18.5.2005, i.e., after the date fixed in the said notice (namely, 6.5.2005) had already passed, it was not possible to serve the said respondent, and, accordingly, the notice alongwith the copy of the Election Petition was being returned to this Court. In view of the circumstances mentioned in the said Communication of the District Judge, Farrukhabad dated 19.5.2005, I am of the opinion that it is necessary that fresh notice be sent .to the respondent No. 8 by ordinary process fixing the next date fixed in the matter. Accordingly, it is directed that fresh notice by ordinary process be issued to the respondent No. 8 fixing the next date fixed in the matter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner will take necessary steps within one week. As regards the notice sent to the respondent No. 8 by Registered Post A/D, the matter will be considered on the next date fixed in the matter. As regards the notice sent to the respondent No. 14 by ordinary process, the said Office Report dated 8.7.20 05, interalia, states that the said notice has not come back with any Report. As regards the notice sent to the respondent No. 14 by Registered Post A/D, the said Office Report dated 8.7.2005, interalia, states that neither Acknowledgement Due Card nor envelope has been received back so far. The matter regarding service of notice sent by ordinary process as well as by Registered Post A/D to the respondent No. 14 will be considered on the next date fixed in the matter. Office will submit fresh Report regarding service of the said notices sent to the respondent No. 14 on the next date fixed in the matter. Order On
(2.) (1) Civil Misc. Application No. 178738 of 2004 (Paper No. A-2) (2) Civil Misc. Application No. 218252 of 2004 (Paper No. A-11) The aforesaid Civil Misc. Application No. 178738 of 2004 (Paper No. A-2) (shown at Sl. No. 1 above) under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 on 30.9.2004. It is, interalia, prayed in the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2) that six weeks' further time be granted for filing Written Statement, and in the mean time, the applications filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 be decided. On 8.10.2004, the consideration of the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2) was postponed on the prayer made by Shri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by S/Shri K.R. Singh and V.D. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. It further appears that a reply affidavit/counter affidavit, sworn on 4.11.2004 (Paper No. A-10) was filed on behalf of the petitioner in reply to the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2). The aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2) was taken-up before the Court on 30.11.2004. Shri Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that as the aforesaid reply affidavit/ counter affidavit had been sworn before the Oath Commissioner of Delhi High Court, a proper affidavit would be filed on behalf of the petitioner in reply to the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2). On prayer made by Shri Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, two weeks' time was granted for filing a fresh affidavit in reply to the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2). Reference in this regard may be made to the order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Court on the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2). When the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2) was taken-up before the Court on 28.1.2005, Shri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted By Shri Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner did not propose to file any reply to the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2). Thus, while, as per the own stand of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid reply affidavit/ counter affidavit (Paper No. A-10) filed on behalf of the petitioner in reply to the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2) was not a proper affidavit, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner on 28.1.2005 stated that the petitioner did not propose to file any reply to the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2). In the circumstances, the averments made in the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2) remained uncontroverted on behalf of the petitioner. As regards Civil Misc. Application No. 218252 of 2004 (Paper No. A-11) (shown at Sl. No. 2 above), the said application was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 under Order 8, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interalia, praying for accepting the Written Statement filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, and taking the same on record treating the same to be filed within time. The said application (Paper No. A-11) was filed on 1.12.2004. )
(3.) It may be mentioned that the Written Statement (Paper No. A-11) was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 on 25.11.2004. On 28.1.2005, counter affidavit, sworn on 16.12.2004, alongwith an application in reply to the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-11) was filed on behalf of the petitioner. The said application and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner are Paper No. A-12 on the record. Reference in this regard may be made to the order dated 28.1.2005 passed on the aforesaid Civil Misc. Application No. 218252 of 2004 (Paper No. A-11) (shown at Sl. No. 2 above). It further appears that on 1.4.2005, rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 (Paper No. A-20) in reply to the counter affidavit (Paper No. A-12) filed on behalf of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-11) (shown at Sl. No. 2 above). Taking up first the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2) (shown at Sl. No. 1 above), as mentioned above, the said application (Paper No. A-2), interalia, prayed for grant of six weeks' time for filing Written Statement on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The said application was supported by an affidavit of Chandra Bhushan Singh (respondent No. 1), sworn on 29.9.2004. It is, interalia, stated in the said affidavit of Chandra Bhushan Singh (respondent-No. 1) that the respondent No. 1 had filed applications under Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and if the pleadings as mentioned in the said applications were struck off and the Election Petition was dismissed, there would be no necessity of filing any Written Statement. As noted above, the averments made in the aforesaid application (Paper No. A-2) remained uncontroverted on behalf of the petitioner in view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner did not propose to file .any reply to the said application (Paper No. A-2).;