RAVINDRA NATH versus RAGHBIR SINGH & ANR.

RAVINDRA NATH versus RAGHBIR SINGH & ANR.

Production of a government treasury receipt showing deposit of Rs. 2,000 as security for costs must be made at the time of giving notice under s. 97(1). Failure to do so results in loss of the right to lead evidence, and subsequent deposit cannot cure the deficiency.

Parties
Appellant: Ravindra Nath; Respondent No. 1: Raghbir Singh; Respondent No. 2: Narinder Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 August 1967
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated December 19, 1966 in Civil Revision No. 934 of 1966
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Election Petition, Recrimination, Security for Costs, Procedural Requirements, Representation of the People Act
Election Law Election Petition Recrimination Security for Costs Procedural Requirements Representation of the People Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ravindra Nath

Appellant

Raghbir Singh

Respondent No. 1

Narinder Singh

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated December 19, 1966 in Civil Revision No. 934 of 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Time limit for furnishing security for costs under s. 97(1) proviso to Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Requirement to produce treasury receipt evidencing full deposit with notice of recrimination
  3. 3 Effect of non-compliance with security deposit requirement

Ratio Decidendi

Production of a government treasury receipt showing deposit of Rs. 2,000 as security for costs must be made at the time of giving notice under s. 97(1). Failure to do so results in loss of the right to lead evidence, and subsequent deposit cannot cure the deficiency.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the High Court set aside
  • Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution dismissed