ARUN NAVARIYA vs SH. NARESH & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 + C.R.P. 102/2024 & CM Appl.15322/2024 ARUN NAVARIYA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sheenu Priya, Mr. Aman Kumar and Mr. Vasu Prasad, Advs. versus SH. NARESH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Swastik Singh, Mr. Atul Singh, Mr. Himanshu Dagar and Mr. Shreshtah Raj Srivastava, Advs. for R-1. Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] impugning the order dated 17.02.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the Petitioner, who was arrayed as Respondent No.5 in the Petition filed before the learned Trial Court, has been dismissed. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had raised several legal objections against the Election Petition filed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:14.05.2025 C.R.P. 102/2024 Page 1 of 4 11:16:53 Respondent/Petitioner. However, it is stated that the Impugned Order has not dealt with all the contentions raised by the Petitioner. 2.1 The grounds for challenge raised by the Petitioner are that the Election Petition filed by the Respondent is liable to be rejected since: (i) The Respondent No.1 has failed to file the Affidavit as provided under Rule 90 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as “DMC Rules”] within the presc