Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects BJP MLA Devender Attri's Plea To Dismiss Election Petition Filed Against Him By Congress Candidate

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea filed by BJP MLA Devender Attri seeking the rejection of an election petition filed against him by Congress candidate Bijendra Singh.

At first Singh had filed an election petition against Attri, seeking recounting of votes and alleging corrupt practices. Later, the Congress Candidate filed amended petition, dropping the allegations of corrupt practices and confining his petition only to the recounting of votes.

The Court rejected the objection raised by Attri that the petitioner did not supply one copy each for all respondents as except Attri rest were proceeded ex-parte.

"Whenever an amended petition is filed, then at that time, there is no need to file copies even for those respondents who had been proceeded ex-parte because they are not prejudiced due to non-receipt of the copies for the reason that, due to lack of interest, they have already discontinued to contest the petition," the Court said.

It clarified that however, if the Ex-parte order is set aside, they can certainly be supplied with a copy of the original as well as the amended petition; and if the petitioner fails to do so, it might be a valid ground for dismissal on their request.

The bench further opined that, the objection regarding not personally filing the amended petition is "unsustainable because no objection was raised at the time of the original election petition, and the amendment apparently did not cause any prejudice to the returned candidate."

"It is not the case of the applicant/ returned candidate that the copy supplied to him was different, or had alterations, or that there were additions or omissions in comparison to what was filed. The copy of the amended petition contains signatures purported to be those of the petitioner, and it is supported by an affidavit that has been duly notarised," said the Court.

Regarding the plea of improper verification, the Court pointed that the amendment did not increase the scope and the returned candidate was previously also supplied with copies, to which the objection does not sustain.

"The scanned copy of the photocopy of the amended petition is stated to have been sent by e-mail dated 15th July 2025 by the counsel for the petitioner to the e-mail ID of counsel for respondent No.1(Attri).

The objection that is similar to the physical copy, even the scanned copy, was not attested by the election petitioner under his signature to be a true copy of the amended election petition, "is baseless because the copies were sent by e-mail as an additional mode of service and not as primary service," it added.

"Thus, the digitally scanned copies, in the absence of allegations of any fewer pages or missing text, are immaterial. No prejudice would be caused to the elected candidate even if the copy supplied to him was just an image of what was filed, and even if it did not contain the signatures of the petitioner," said the Court.

The Court also rejected the ground that the petitioner did not personally file the amended petition, which was the requirement of the Representation of People Act (RP Act).

"The amended petition has not been filed in violation of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 81(1) of the RP Act does not require that the amended election petition, which restricts, reduces, or deletes the prayers, must also be presented personally by the petitioner; there is no legal requirement to file such type of amended petition by the petitioner personally, and in this backdrop, there is no contravention of any mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 81(1) of the RP Act," the Court said.

The Court further explained that, Section 81(3) of the RP Act does not apply to that amended election petition which restricts, reduces, or deletes the prayers, because it provides that at the time of filing of the election petition, the petitioner is required to file true image copies of the election petition only to the contesting respondents and not to those who have already been proceeded ex-parte and are not contesting the petition. Despite service, except for respondent no. 1 (Attri), no one ever appeared in the Court.

Adding that the election petition discloses proper cause of action, and as such, this Court cannot dismiss the same under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without putting it on trial, the Court held, "there is no primafacie violation of S. 81 or S. 83 of the RP Act, and hence, there is no ground to dismiss it under S. 86 of the RPA."

Mr. Abhimanyu Tiwari, Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Advocate for the non-applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Sahil Garg, and Ms. Garima, Advocates for applicant/respondent No.1.

Title: Brijendra Singh v/s Devender Chattar Bhuj Attri and others

Click here to read order