http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: THEPFULO NAKHRO ANGAMI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRIMATI RAVALU alias RENO M. SHAIZA

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/01/1971

BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. SHAH, J.C. (CJ) MITTER, G.K. GROVER, A.N. RAY, A.N.

CITATION:  1972 AIR   43            1971 SCR  (1) 424  1971 SCC  (1) 431

ACT: Appeal-Respondent   in  Supreme  Court  seeking   to   raise questions   decided   in  favour  of   appellant   by   High Court--Respondent  is  entitled to raise such question  even though  he has not filed substantive appeal against  of  the People  Act,  1951,  s. 116A as amended  in  1966-Court  can devise   appropriate   procedure  in  absence   of   express provisions-Provisions  of Civil Procedure Code O. XLI r.  22 can be drawn upon.

HEADNOTE:  In  an election petition there were charges under s.  123(6)  read  with  s. 77 of the Representation of the  People  Act,  1951 against the appellant.  The High Court decided  against  him.  although  absolving  him  of  certain  charges.    The  appellant filed an appeal in this Court under s. 116A of the  Representation  of the People Act, 1951 as amended in  1966.  The  respondent  contended that he was  entitled  to  submit  without  preferring a Substantive appeal to this Court  that  the  charges  in  respect of which the  appellant  had  been  absolved  by  the  High  Court were  proved  and  he  should  therefore  be  allowed  to raise those  questions.   On  the  matter being referred to a large bench-,  HELD : The respondent’s contention must be accepted.  In  Rambhai  Ashabhai Patel’s case it was  ruled  that  this  Court  has power to decide all the points arising  from  the  judgment  appealed  against and even in the  absence  of  an  express  provision  like  OXLI r. 22 of the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure, this Court can devise appropriate procedure to be  adopted  at the hearing and there could be no better way  of  supplying the deficiency than by drawing upon the provisions  of  a  general  law like the Code  of  Civil  Procedure  and  adopting  such  of those provisions as are  ,suitable.   The  decision of the Court did not rest either on the ground that  the appeal before it was brought by special leave or on  the  interpretation of S. 116A as it then stood. [426 D-G]  Rai anbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Debbi Ajitkumar Pulsinji & Ors.  [1965] 1 S.C.R. 712, followed and applied.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1125 of 1970.  Appeal  under s. 116-A of the Representation of  the  People  Act,  1951 from the judgment and order dated March 26,  1970  of  the Assam and Nagaland High Court in  Election  Petition  No. 2 of 1969.  S.V.  Gupte, S.K. Ghose, Advocate-General, Nagaland,  Naunit  Lal, A. R. Bharthakar, R. C. Choudhry and B. K. Dass,  for the appellant.  A.   S. R. Chari, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, R. K. Jain, V. J.  Francis and S. Chakravarty, for the respondent..  425  On January 14, 1971 the Court passed, the following                     ORDER  After hearing the arguments we are of the view that  unders.  116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as amend-  ed by the Act of 1966, the respondent is entitled to support  the judgment of the High Court without preferring an  appeal  against, an order made against him if the ultimate  decision  in  the  petition is in his favour.  The  reasons  for  this  order will be given hereafter.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  Hegde, J. The decision on the question of law considered  by  this Bench was announced on the 14th of this month.  We  are  now  proceeding  to  give our reasons in’  support  of  that  decision.  On September 14, 1970, two of us (Shah, C.J.  and  Grover, J.) passed the following order  "This appeal raises an important question of procedure.   We  have  heard  leaned  Counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the        parties.   Mr. Gupte appearing for the  appel-        lant contended that the charge under s. 123(6)        read  with s. 77 of the Representation of  the        People  Act  was  not  made  out.   Mr.  Chari        appearing   on   behalf  of   the   respondent        contended  that  he  was  entitled  to  submit        without  preferring  a substantive  appeal  to        this  Court  that the charges  in  respect  of        which the appellant has been absolved by order        of the High Court are proved and he should  be        permitted  to  raise those questions  in  this        appeal.  Our attention has not been invited to        any case which interprets the provisions of s.        116(A) of the Representation of the People Act        at  it stands after the amendment made in  the        year 1967.  In  view of the importance of the question, we  direct  that  the  case  be  referred to a larger bench  of  five  judges.  Hearing expedited.  Though,  the  entire appeal was referred to a  larger  bench  for decision, at the hearing it was considered advisable  to  decide only the question of law set out in the order and not  the whole case.  We accordingly heard arguments only on that  question.  In our opinion that question is concluded by  the  decision of this Court in Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v.  Debhi  Ajitkumar Fulsinji and’ Ors. (1)  (1)  [1965] 1 S.C.R. 712.  426  Mr. S. V. Gupte , learned Counsel for the appellant tried to  distinguish  that decision on two grounds viz. (1) that  the  decision in question was rendered in an appeal to this Court  by special leave and as such the jurisdiction of this  Court  was much wider than that conferred on this Court by s.  116A  of  the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and (2)  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the  scope of an appeal under s. 116A before, its  amendment  in  1966 was different than from its scope at  present.   We  are  unable to accept either of these two  contentions.   In  the  above decision, it was ruled that this Court has  power  to decide all the points arising from the judgment  appealed  against and even in the absence of an express provision like  0. XLI, r. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can  devise  appropriate procedure to be adopted at  the  hearing  and there could be no better way of supplying the deficiency  than  by drawing upon the provisions of a general  law  like  the  Code  of  Civil Procedure and adopting  such  of  those  provisions as are suitable.  The decision of, the Court  did  not rest either on the ground that the appeal before it  was  brought   by  special  leave  of  this  Court  or   on   the  interpretation  of  s. 116A as it than stood.   The  reasons  behind the rule laid down by this Court are found at p.  725  of the report.  Therein it is observed :  "It is true that the rules framed by this Court in  exercise  of  its  rule  making powers do not  contain  any  provision  analogous to 0. XLI, rule 22 of the Code of Civil  Procedure  which  permits  a  party to support  the  judgment  appealed  against  upon. a ground which has been found against him  in  that  judgment.   The provision nearest to, it  is  the  one  contained in 0. XVIII, r. 3 of the Rules of this Court which  requires  parties to file statement of cases.  Sub-rule  (1)  of  that rule provides that Part I of the statement  of  the  case  shall also set out the contentions of the parties  and  the  points  of  law and fact arising  in  the  appeal.   It  further  provides that in Part II a party shall set out  the  propositions   of  law  to  be  urged  in  support  of   the  contentions   of  the  party  lodging  the  case   and   the  authorities in support thereof.  There is no reason to limit  the  provision of this rule only to those contentions  which  deal  with the points found in favour of that party  in  the  judgment appealed from.  Apart from that we think that while  dealing  with the appeal before it this Court has the  power  to decide all the points arising from the judgment  appealed  against and even in the absence of an express provision like  0.  XLI, r. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure it can  devise  the  appropriate  procedure to be adopted  at  the  hearing.  There  could  be no better way of supplying  the  deficiency  than by drawing upon the provisions of a  427  general  law like the Code of Civil Procedure  and  adopting  such  of those provisions as are suitable.  We  cannot  lose  sight of the fact that normally a party in whose favour  the  judgment  appealed from has been given will not  be  granted  special leave to appeal from it.  Considerations of justice,  therefore,  require  that this Court should  in  appropriate  cases  permit a party placed in such a position  to  support  the  judgment  in his- favour even upon grounds  which  were  negatived in that judgment."  The  decision referred to above will govern the question  of  law  with which we are connected in this case.   The  appeal  was  already  directed  by the Chief Justice  to  be  posted  before  the  Bench presided over by Mitter  J.  for  further  hearing.  G. C.  428