1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness, legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dated 20th September, 2024 as at Annexure-6 passed in connection with Election Petition No.02 of 2022 by the learned District Judge, Sundargarh, whereby, the proceeding initiated under Section 19 of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been dismissed upon rejection of the election petition in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the grounds stated.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was one among the contesting candidates for the post of Chairman of Sundargarh Municipality held on 24th March, 2022, wherein, opposite party No.1 was declared elected having polled 7812 votes and opposite party No.2 having secured 6577 votes. The petitioner was an independent candidate, whereas, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 contested the election sponsored by the respective political party and she polled 6542 votes and lost the election as a result. Being dissatisfied of the election result, the petitioner presented an application under Section 19 of the Act to declare the election of opposite party No.1 as null and void considering the abnormalities and irregularities noticed during the election and to direct re-election besides such other reliefs. Upon receiving the election petition, a copy of which is at Annexure-1, the learned District Judge, Sundargarh received show cause reply from opposite party Nos.1, 3 and 4, whereas, opposite party No.2 was a set ex parte and thereafter, issues were framed and evidence was received from the side of the petitioner. After the closure of evidence from the side of the petitioner, opposite party No.1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC alleging absence of a cause of action with specific pleading on corrupt practices allegedly adopted and considering the same, the learned court below disposed it of by order dated 17th March, 2023 as at Annexure-3 with the conclusion that the election petition is not liable for rejection and accordingly, directed opposite party No.1 to lead evidence. Referring to Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short 'the RP Act'), the rejection of the election petition was pressed into service by opposite party No.1 but it did not find favour with the learned court below and hence, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. Against the aforesaid order, opposite party No.1 approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.10942 of 2023, wherein, by order dated 13th March, 2024, the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to both the sides. Consequent to the Court's above order vide Annexure-4, the learned District Judge, Sundargarh reconsidered the plea of opposite party No.1 and at last concluded that the election petition deserves rejection by a decision dated 20th September, 2024 at Annexure-6, which is presently under challenge.

3. Opposite party No.1 filed the counter affidavit and it has been pleaded therein that there is lack of specific pleading as to the material facts to justify the allegation of corrupt practices and therefore, in view of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the election petition is to be rejected and hence, it has been rightly considered by the learned court below leading to the passing of the impugned order at Annexure-6. Referring to the order dated 13th March, 2023 in W.P.(C) No.10942 of 2023, it is pleaded by opposite party No.1 that the learned District Judge, Sundargarh did not err or commit any illegality in rejecting the plaint in absence of material facts pleaded with regard to corrupt practices and undue influence as required in view of Order 6 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 19 of the Act and therefore, the impugned order as at Annexure-6 needs no interference.

4. Opposite party Nos.3 and 4 did not file any counter.

5. Heard Mr. Devray, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party No.1.

6. Mr. Devray, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the provisions of the RP Act would not apply, wherein, details of the corrupt practices alleged are to be stated with material particulars as is required under Section 83 thereof with an affidavit filed, whereas, Section 19 of the Act stipulates that any such allegations need to be pleaded in a summary manner and not concisely, a clear distinction which failed to have been taken judicial notice of by the learned court below and as a result, the election petition was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The further submission is that the proceeding before the learned court below has progressed to a considerable extent with the closure of evidence from the side of the petitioner and at that stage, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC could not have been entertained. The contention is that the learned court below illegally rejected the election petition on the premise that specific pleadings are absent alleging corrupt practices resorted to during election which could not have been allowed long after commencement of hearing of the proceeding and that too, after closure of evidence of the petitioner. According to Mr. Devray, learned counsel, the necessary particulars have been pleaded on record in a summary manner as per Section 19 of the Act but the learned court below erroneously referred to Section 83 of the RP Act and ultimately rejected the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that material particulars have not been stated therein. With the contention as above, Mr. Devray, learned counsel would finally submit that the impugned order at Annexure-6 cannot be sustained in law and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with and set aside followed by consequential directions issued.

7. Noted down the submission of Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.1 would submit that bare minimum facts are to be pleaded while alleging corrupt practices during the election, in absence whereof, the learned court below did not commit any illegality in rejecting the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is submitted that Order 6 Rule 4 CPC demands particulars to be given when the pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud etc. and general allegations are considered insufficient and therefore, the learned court below rightly exercised the jurisdiction and rejected the election petition. It is contended by Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate that as there has been corrupt practices alleged with such other facts pleaded by the petitioner but particulars of such mischief by opposite party No.1 having not been specifically pleaded as required under law, the impugned order at Annexure-6 rejecting the election petition by the learned court below is perfectly justified. The contention is that such a demand for rejection of election petition in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be entertained at any stage of the proceeding even before conclusion of the hearing and hence, the learned court below committed no wrong in entertaining the same after closure of evidence by the petitioner and therefore, the decision as per Annexure-6 does not suffer from any infirmity.

8. In course of hearing, Mr. Devray, learned counsel cited the following decisions, such as, UCO Bank Vrs. Purnima Agarwal and others in CRP No.15 of 2022 of this Court dated 25th July, 2025; Kuldeep Singh Pathania Vrs. Bikram Singh Jaryal (2017) 5 SCC 345; Thangjam Arunkumar Vrs. Yumkham Erabot Singh and others (2023) 11 SCR 392; Smt. Bimla Vrs. Mata Deen 1997 AIHC 1434; M/s Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another in Civil Appeal No.4570 of 2023; A.S. Gahlout and others Vrs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others AIR 1994 Delhi 69 to contend that the pleading on record was enough to consider the election petition and its disposal, inasmuch as, the provisions of the RP Act are inapplicable as the proceeding is governed by the Act and in terms of Section 19 thereof and in so far as entertainability of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned, the same is not maintainable after evidence has been led and trial has substantially advanced.

9. On the contrary, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.1 cited the case laws referred to hereinbelow, such as, Hari Shanker Jain Vrs. Sonia Gandhi (2001) 8 SCC 233; Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vrs. A. Santhana Kumar and others 2023 SCC Online SC 573; Jitu Patnaik Vrs. Sanatan Mohakud and others (2012) 4 SCC 194; Ramesh Vrs. Meenakshi Lekhi 2023 SCC Online Del 5346; Senthilbalaji V. Vrs. A.P. Geetha and others (2023) 16 SCC 279 with the contention that rejection of the election petition is permissible when the same does not disclose a cause of action referring to the facts averred therein and the pleading on record cannot be vague and no amount of evidence can cure such defect therein for the reason that material facts are to be stated precisely. On the point of maintainability of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate refers to the decisions in Saleem Bhai and others Vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (2003) 1 SCC 557; Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vrs. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706; R.K. Roja Vrs. U.S. Rayudu and another (2016) 14 SCC 275; Sivananda Roy Vrs. Janaki Ballav Pattnaik and others 1984 SCC Online Ori 26 to submit that the same is permissible at any time before conclusion of trial and is not restricted to any particular stage. The citations in Samar Singh Vrs. Kedar Nath Alia K.N. Singh and others 1987 Supp. Supreme Court Cases 663 and Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others Vrs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others (2004) 3 SCC 137 have also been placed reliance on to contend that a Court can exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and reject an election petition at any stage of the proceeding. Lastly, a case law in Union of India and others Vrs. N. Murugesan and others (2022) 2 SCC 25 is referred to submit that such a question cannot be reagitated by the petitioner after decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10942 of 2023 in absence of any challenge to the same.

10. Admittedly, the hearing has commenced with the closure of evidence by the petitioner before the learned court below and thereafter, such an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was moved by opposite party No.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that citing non-compliance of the provisions of the RP Act, the election petition has been rejected by the learned court below, whereas, the proceeding is governed by the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. There is no denial to the fact that elections to the ULBs in the State are subservient to the provisions of the Act and Odisha Municipal (Delimitation of Wards, Reservation of Seats and Conduct of Election) Rules, 1994. The learned court below has referred to Section 83 of the RP Act and concluded that the petitioner was required to concisely state the material facts in particular with regard to the malpractices and such other mischief committed during election by opposite party No.1.

11. Mr. Devray, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that any such provisions of the RP Act not to be applicable and for the purpose of an election dispute under Section 19 of the Act, the facts alleged and pleaded are to be stated in a summary manner. In reply to the above, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.1 would contend that the petitioner is required to specify the grounds on which the election is being questioned and to plead all such facts to justify the grounds put forth. In fact, Section 19 of the Act stipulates that election petition is to be presented before a District Judge after the result of the election was announced specifying therein the grounds of challenge containing a summary of the circumstances alleged justifying the grounds pleaded. The procedure which is required to be followed after receiving an election petition under Section 19 of the Act has been prescribed under Section 22 thereof. According to Section 28 of the Act, a person shall be deemed to have committed corrupt practices, who directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person commits the acts detailed therein and upon satisfaction of any of the grounds pleaded in the election petition, the District Judge shall have the powers to declare the election of any such person to be invalid and direct creation of a casual vacancy or even to declare any other candidate to have been duly elected, which ever course appears in the particular circumstances of the case to be more appropriate having the discretion to impose cost in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act. Having considered the scheme of the Act, it is not understood how the learned court below referred to the provisions of the RP Act while dealing with the request for rejection of election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Section 19 of the Act requires an election petition to be presented and considered by the District Judge in the manner specified therein with the circumstances justifying the grounds, which are to be stated in a summary manner unlike pleading facts concisely with specific material facts as required under Section 83 of the RP Act. On a reading of the facts pleaded in the election petition at Annexure-2, even though, it does not reveal the material particulars in great detail but demands election of opposite party No.1 to be declared invalid on the ground that there has been improper acceptance of the nomination paper with no proper scrutiny conducted by the Election Officer with the affidavits filed by her not properly verified with malpractices alleged and accomplished with the assistance of henchmen on the date mentioned therein with such other facts revealed. The standard of pleading necessary under Section 83 of the RP Act is not contemplated for an election dispute under Section 19 of the Act. The grounds alleged are to be stated and it shall contain a summary of the circumstances, whereas, as per Section 83 of the RP Act, it has to be concise and with all such material facts and particulars in case of corrupt practices alleged. According to the Court, the said aspect was completely lost sight of by the learned court below while entertaining the plea of opposite party No.1 and ultimately, in rejecting the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. A proceeding under Section 19 of the Act is not like a suit or an action initiated under the RP Act and therefore, the decision of a Court while dealing with a plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC shall have to confirm to the standard of pleading prescribed under Section 19 of the Act. To insist upon all such facts and particulars to be pleaded on record in a dispute under Section 19 of the Act in great detail while considering a plea for rejection of election petition exercising power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC would be inconsistent with the scheme of the Act. Therefore, the conclusion is that the learned court below could not have reached at a conclusion demanding standard of pleading at par with Section 83 of the RP Act while proceeding with an action under Section 19 of the Act. Furthermore, in case of allegation of corrupt practices under Section 83 of the RP Act, it is required to be supported by a separate affidavit. Such compliance is required to be strictly adhered to in a proceeding under the RP Act, whereas, there is no such stipulation in so far as Section 19 of the Act is concerned. It is concluded by the Court that there is a clear distinction in the standard of pleading necessary in a proceeding under Section 19 of the Act in juxtaposition to Section 83 of the RP Act which mandates a detailed and strict procedural requirement with facts pleaded containing the material particulars supported by an affidavit. In contrast, Section 19 of the Act only requires an election petition presented stating the grounds containing the summary of the circumstances and not in the manner as prescribed in the RP Act. The said aspect has not been taken cognizance of by the learned court below as it was completely at error to borrow the provisions of the RP Act while dealing with the demand of opposite party No.1 for rejecting the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. To reiterate the Court concludes that the Act governs the field and not the RP Act since the election dispute is of an ULB and guided by the provisions prescribed thereunder.

12. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.1 cited the decision in Saleem Bhai (supra) to contend that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be entertained and considered at any stage of a proceeding or suit as held therein. The further decision in Ponniamman Educational Trust case has also been referred to advance the contention that rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and invocation of power thereunder can be resorted to at any stage of the suit either before admitting the plaint or after issuance of summons to the other side or at any time before conclusion of the trial and therefore, the learned court below rightly entertained such a plea even though the evidence by the petitioner was concluded. In reply to the above, Mr. Devray, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision in M/s Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a decision of Larger Bench of the Apex Court to contend that rejection of plaint cannot be considered at a later stage. It is contended that the decision in Saleem Bhai (supra) has been referred to by the Apex Court in the above decision and concluded that the purpose behind Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is to ensure that the plaint or any such petition which is defective for any of the reasons enumerated therein shall not be entertained solely to put an end to everything before commencement of hearing. It has been held therein that rejection of plaint shall have to be considered at the earliest point in time and not at a later stage of the suit or proceeding. It has also been concluded by the Apex Court in the decision (supra) that when the proceedings have reached such an advanced stage of trial, the Court has gone through the merits of the case, it would be fair to presume that it has already applied its mind to the substantive submissions and cannot make a prima facie conclusion about a plaint being improper at the outset or not. It has been observed therein that when the Court is considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is to peruse and refer to the averments contained in the plaint to find out and ascertain whether the same is defective for any of the reasons provided under the Rule and since the plaint is the only material to be considered, while deciding an application seeking its rejection and when evidence has been recorded, it is only natural that some form of bias opinion regarding merit of the case would crop up in the mind of the Court and in such a scenario looking at the plaint in isolation and deciding the rejection thereof based solely on prima facie reading of the facts pleaded therein would not be possible and at that stage, the trial having commenced where dismissal of a suit on merit is more appropriate course of action instead of rejection of a plaint, which should have been done at a preliminary stage.

13. In the case (supra) another decision of the Apex Court in Azhar Hussain Vrs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 (Supp.) SCC 315 has been referred to, wherein, it has been held and concluded that the whole purpose of conferment of any such power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court and that sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over one's head unnecessarily without any purpose thereby rejecting the argument that the power to exercise and take a decision on the issue of absence of a cause of action is permissible even at a belated stage after commencement of trial. In other words, on a sincere reading of the decisions referred to above, it has to be concluded that a Court has the power to act upon and even reject a plaint at the very threshold, if it is satisfied that such exercise of power is warranted. On a proper reading of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it would reveal that the averments in the plaint are to be gone into to consider, whether, a suit is to be admitted. If there is no cause of action or the plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense for not disclosing a cause of action, under such circumstances, power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is to be invoked and it has to be at the very beginning and not after commencement of trial or when the proceeding has substantially progressed, when a Court has received evidence therein. The ratio decided in Saleem Bhai and Ponniamman Educational Trust (supra) are therefore no longer good law in view of the decision of the Apex Court in M/s Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein, entertainment of any such plea towards rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at a belated stage and before conclusion of trial has been held to be impermissible with the observation that allowing any such right to survive till eternity only acts as a catalyst for the defendants to misuse the provision and to prolong or delay the trial and would also be an abuse of process of law.

14. In the case at hand, as earlier discussed, the evidence from the side of the petitioner is already over. Such a demand for rejection of election petition was not received by the learned court below any time before commencement of hearing of the election dispute. The Court finds that in absence of any such plea at the beginning or at any time after appearance of opposite party No.1 and commencement of hearing of the proceeding, demand for rejection of election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on any such grounds pleaded having not been received in the meantime, when there has been substantial progress with the receipt of evidence from the petitioner, the learned court below could not have entertained such a plea at such a belated stage and therefore, the decision as per Annexure-6 is liable to be interfered with, furthermore when, the election petition pleaded facts in terms of Section 19 of the Act, sufficiency and acceptability of any such grounds and circumstances justifying the election to be declared invalid, are required to be examined towards the end upon disposal of the same.

15. Accordingly, it is ordered.

16. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 20th September, 2024 as at Annexure-6 in Election Petition No.02 of 2022 is hereby set aside with a direction as to restoration for disposal of the proceeding by the learned District Judge, Sundargarh in accordance with law after receiving evidence from the side of the opposite parties.