Orissa High Court
Basanti Pani vs Kunni Limma …. Opposite Parties on 20 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27550 of 2023
Basanti Pani .... Petitioner
Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, Advocate
-versus-
1. Kunni Limma .... Opposite Parties
2. Nuadini Kauri
3. Bijeta Mishal
Mr. P.Ch. Panda, Advocate (O.P.1)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
20.03.2026
Order No.
06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1.
2. The present petitioner, who is Opposite Party
No.1 in Election Petition No.1 of 2022 pending before
the learned Senior Civil Judge, Paralakhemundi,
Gajapati, has filed this writ petition assailing the order
dated 21.03.2023 whereby her petitions under Order
XVI Rule 6 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) were
rejected.
3. On notice being issued, the learned counsel for
the Opposite Party No.1 appeared.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that on a bare perusal, the impugned order
suffers from non-application of mind and hence, the
same is liable to be interfered with.
Page 1 of 3
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite
Party No.1 submits that on a cogent analysis of the
provisions contained under Order XVI Rule-6 of CPC,
the learned Election Tribunal has rejected the petition.
6. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen
that the learned Election Tribunal, taking into account
that the Petitioner herein has filed a petition to call for
the record relating to election in the year 2017 from
the BDO, Gumma, to prove that the Opposite Party
No.1 was not qualified to contest the election held in
the year 2022, held that since such documents are
related to the year 2017, those are not relevant for
adjudication.
7. On a conspectus of materials on record, this
Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed,
so as to warrant interference.
7-A. The order rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner
under Order XVI Rule-6 of CPC does not merit
interference. Accordingly, the order passed by the
Senior Civil Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati is
affirmed.
8. So far as the order relating to rejection of plaint
is concerned, on perusal of the impugned order, it is
seen that relying on the settled position of law that the
plaint has to be considered as a whole and referring to
the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.K.
Roja vs. U.S. Rayudu and another reported in 2016
(II) OLR (SC) 606, the impugned order has been
Page 2 of 3
passed. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in
the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati, so as to warrant
interference.
9. It shall be open to the Election Tribunal to
proceed with the matter with the expediency it
deserves, since the same is pending since 2022 and
this Court is assured that the Parties shall cooperate.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition along with pending
I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Ayesha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYESHA ROUT
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Mar-2026 19:54:16
Page 3 of 3