REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PONNALA LAKSHMAIAH Appellant

V/S

KOMMURI PRATAP REDDY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MURARKA RADBEY SHYAM KAM KUMAR VS. ROOP SINGH RATHORE [REFERRED TO]
RAJ NARAIN VS. INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
P MALAICHAMI VS. M ANDI AMBALAM [REFERRED TO]
UDHAV SINGH VS. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA [REFERRED TO]
BALWAN SINGH VS. PRAKASH CHAND [REFERRED TO]
M KAMALAM VS. V A SYED MOHAMMED [REFERRED TO]
MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY VS. BAIDYANATH YADAV [REFERRED TO]
F A SAPA VAIVENGA SAIKAPTHIANGA ZALAWMA LALHUTHANGA VS. SINGORA:ZONUNTHARA:HRANGTHASANGA:T ROZAMA:ROMANA [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR JOSHI VS. NITIN BHAURAO PATIL [REFERRED TO]
H D REVANNA VS. G PUTTASWAMY GOWDA [REFERRED TO]
V S ACHUTHANANDAN VS. P J FRANCIS [REFERRED TO]
R P MOIDUTTY VS. P T KUNJU MOHAMMAD [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA PAL VS. RAM DASS MALANGER [REFERRED TO]
V NARAYANASWAMY VS. C P THIRUNAVUKKARASU [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER SINGH VS. JANMEJA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY LAXMI SADHO VS. JAGDISH [REFERRED TO]
G MALLIKARJINAPPA VS. SHAMANUR SHIVASHANKARAPPA [REFERRED TO]
T PHUNZATHANG VS. HANGKHANLIAN [REFERRED TO]
KAMALNATH VS. SUDESH VERMA [REFERRED TO]
T A AHAMMED KABEER VS. A A AZEEZ [REFERRED TO]
LIVERPOOL AND LONDON S P AND I ASSOCIATION LIMITED VS. M V SEA SUCCESS [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR HARCHARAN SINGH BRAR VS. SUKH DARSHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CHURCH OF NORTH OF INDIA VS. LAVAJIBHAI RATANJIBHAI [REFERRED TO]
HARKIRAT SINGH VS. AMRINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER NATH GAUTAM VS. SATPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UMESH CHALLIYIL VS. K P RAJENDRAN [REFERRED TO]
RAM SUKH VS. DINESH AGGERWAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The short question that falls for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was right in holding that the election petition filed by respondent No.1 against the appellant who happens to be the successful candidate in the election to the 98-Jangaon Assembly Constituency in the State of Andhra Pradesh, disclosed a cause of action and could not therefore be dismissed at the threshold. The factual matrix in which the election petition came to be filed by the respondent has been set out at length by the High Court, hence need not be recounted except to the extent the same is essential for the disposal of the appeal. The High Court has, while holding that the averments made in the election petition raised triable issues and disclosed a cause of action, observed:

(3.) Having carefully gone through the averments made in the election petition, we are of the opinion that the election petition sets out the requisite material facts that disclose a cause of action and gives rise to triable issues, which can not be given a short shrift by taking an unduly technical view as to the nature of the pleadings. There is no denying the fact that Courts are competent to dismiss petitions not only on the ground that the same do not comply with the provisions of Sections 81, 82 & 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 but also on the ground that the same do not disclose any cause of action. The expression "cause of action" has not been defined either in the Civil Procedure Code or elsewhere and is more easily understood than precisely defined. This Court has in Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., 2006 6 SCC 207attempted an explanation of the expression in the following words:

Click here to view full judgment.

PONNALA LAKSHMAIAH Vs. KOMMURI PRATAP REDDY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address