1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the respondent No.2 (Hemant Kumar Prusty) in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 praying for passing of an order to direct the petitioner in I.A. No.113 of 2024 (respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) to implead him (Hemant Kumar Prusty-respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.113 of 2024 filed by him (respondent No.1) stating that, if the I.A. No.113 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 is allowed, then, the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 shall be rejected/dismissed and by the result of which, he (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 and petitioner in this I.A.) shall be highly prejudiced. For which, he (petitioner in this I.A.) is a necessary party in the I.A. No.113 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024.

Therefore, he (petitioner) is required to be given an opportunity of hearing in the I.A. No.113 of 2024. So, if this I.A. filed by him will not be allowed for his impleadment as the Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.113 of 2024, then, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

2. During the course of hearing of this I.A., the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in this I.A. (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) also argued in support of the aforesaid prayers of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in I.A. No.113 of 2024 (respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) did not object to the aforesaid contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2.

To, to which, the learned Senior Counsel for the Election Petitioner objected contending that, the self-same issue has already been decided by this Court vide Order dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.93 of 2025 rejecting to the prayer for the impleadment of the petitioner in this I.A. (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.113/2024, which was filed by the respondent No.1.

3. During the course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 relied upon the following decisions for the impleadment of respondent No.2 as Opp. Party No.2 in this I.A:

                   (I) Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others: (2010) 7 SCC 417.

                   (II) Civil Appeal Nos.5405-5406 of 2025 reported in 2025 INCS 611.

                   (III) K. Kamaraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar and Others reported in AIR 1958 SC 687.

                   (IV) Inamati Mallappa Basappa Vs. Desai Basavaraj Ayyappa and Others: AIR 1958 SUPREME COURT 698

4. For the dismissal of this I.A, the learned Senior Counsel for the Election Petitioner relied upon the following decisions:

                   (I) K. Venkateswara Rao & Another Vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi & Others:1968 SCC Online SC 285 (Para No.11 and 12).

                   (II) B. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India & Others: 1991 Supp. 2 SCC 624 (Para No.4).

5. It appears from the record that, previously, the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 had filed an I.A. vide I.A. No.93 of 2025 praying for the impleadment of the petitioner of this I.A. (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) as the Opp. Party No.2 in the same I.A. vide I.A. No.113 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 against the Election Petitioner.

6. As per the Judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.93/2025, this Court rejected to such I.A. No.93/2025 of the respondent No.1 refusing his prayer to implead the respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9/2024 as the Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.113 of 2024 assigning the reasons that,

                   “the Court trying the Election dispute under R.P. Act, 1951 cannot exercise its power under the General Act i.e. under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 to direct the parties of the Election Petition for the impleadment of another in the said Election Petition. Because, there is specific provisions in the special Statute i.e R.P. Act, 1951 for impleadment of a party or parties. For which, the provisions under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 are not applicable for the impleadment of respondent No.2 in the Election Petition as Opp. Party No.2 in the I.A. No.113 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1. Because, the matters in dispute involves in I.A. No.113 of 2024 is between the respondent No.1 and the Election Petitioner, in which, the respondent No.2 can have no say.”

7. The said Judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.93/2025 refusing the prayer of the respondent No.1 for the impleadment of the respondent No.2 of Election Petition No.9 of 2024 (petitioner in this I.A.) as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.113 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1 has already been reached in its finality, as the said Judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.93 of 2025 has not been challenged by the respondent No.1 before the Apex Court for its variation.

8. It is the settled propositions of law that, what cannot be done directly, the same is not permissible to be done indirectly or obliquely. Such principles of law is based on a legal maxim i.e. QUANDO ALIQUID PROHIBETUR, PROHIBETUR ET OMNE PER QUOD DEVENITUR AD ILLUD.

9. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

                   (I) In a case between Sant Lal Gupta & Others Vs. Modern Co-0perative Group Housing Society Ltd & Others reported in 2010 (4) Civ.L.T. 192 (SC) that, what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely.

                   (II) In a case between Sarojini Dei @ Das & Others Vs. Satya Prasad Pattnaik & Others reported in 2014 (II) OLR 932 that, what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done indirectly.

                   (III) In a case between State of Tamil Nadu & Others Vs. K. Shyam Sunder & Others reported in AIR 2011 SC 3470 that, what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done indirectly.

10. Here in this matter at hand, when the impleadment of the petitioner (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) as the Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.113/2024 sought for by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9/2024 was disallowed/refused directly as per the Judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.93/2025 passed by this Court filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 assigning the aforesaid reasons, then, at this juncture, the self- same prayer made by the petitioner in this I.A. (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) for his impleadment as Opp. Party No.2 in same I.A. No.113/2024 cannot be allowed indirectly in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions indicated in Para No.9 of this Judgment.

11. Therefore, the prayer for impleadment of the petitioner in this I.A. as Opp. Party in I.A. No.113/2024 cannot be allowed.

As such, there is no merit in this I.A. filed by the petitioner. The same is liable to be dismissed.

12. In result, this I.A. filed by the petitioner (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) is dismissed on contest.

13. As such, this I.A filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.