See Full Document Text
(cid:315)(cid:175)ೇಷ (cid:170)ಾಜ(cid:205) ಪ(cid:294)(cid:206)(cid:144)ೆ
¨sÁU À – 4 , 24 , 2026 , 05 ) . 174
Part – IV BENGALURU, TUESDAY, 24, FEBRUARY, 2026 ( PHALGUNA , 05, SHAKAVARSHA, 1947) No. 174
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS SECRETARIAT (ELECTIONS)
NOTIFICATION
No. DPAR 05 CHUTHAA 2026, Bengaluru, Dated: 24th February 2026.
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
Dated: 27th January, 2026
7 Magha, 1947 ( Saka)
NOTIFICATION
No. 82/KT-LA/06/2023 :- In pursuance of Section 106 (b) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission hereby publishes the
judgment/orders of the high Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru dated : 25.09.2025 in the Election
Petition No. 06/2023
(1)2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KA RNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ELECTION PETITION NO. 06 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. K M .THIMMARAYAPPA
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT KODETHIMMANAHALLI
NIDAGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU-572 116 …PETITIONER
(BY SRI K M THIMMARAYAPPA, PETITIONER [ABSENT])
AND:
MR. H.V. VENKATESH
S/O MR.VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT
HANUMANTHANAHALLI VILLAGE
MARIDASANAHALLI POST
Y.N.HOSAKOTEHOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU -572 141 …RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. LEELA P DEVADIGA., ADVOCATE)
THIS ELECTION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 81 OF THE REPRESENTATION
OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1951, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ELECTION OF THE RESPONDENT
TO THE 16TH KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FROM NO.137 PAVAGADA
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY (SC) KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND ETC. THIS
PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 15.04.2025, seeking permission to
retire from the case on the ground that the petitioner had taken back all the case papers pertaining
to the subject election petition, along with a no-objection vakalathnama, in the month of February
2025, on the pretext of engaging the services of another counsel. Thereafter, the petitioner has
neither engaged any other counsel nor issued any instructions to the learned counsel to proceed
with the matter. Consequently, the learned counsel sent a notice to the petitioner on 05.04.2025,
intimating him of his intention to retire from the case. Along with the memo, the learned counsel3
has enclosed the notice dated 05.04.2025 and the postal acknowledgment evidencing service of
the said notice.
2. Today, when the matter was called, neither the petitioner was present nor had he engaged any other
counsel to prosecute the case. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present
proceedings.
3. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the election petition can be dismissed for
default.
4. This question is no longer res integra in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera vs. B.L. Shankar and Others, reported in 1984 Supp.
SCC 631. The Apex Court has categorically held that an election petition is liable to be
dismissed for default in a situation covered by Order IX of the Code of
Civil Procedure (CPC). The relevant paragraph is extracted below:
“16. There is no support in the statute for the contention of the
appellant that an election petition cannot be dismissed for
default. The appellant contended that default of appearance
or nonprosecution of the election petition must be treated as
on par with withdrawal or abatement and, therefore, though
there is no clear provision in the Act, the same principle
should govern and the obligation to notify as provided in
Section 110 or 116 of the Act should be made applicable. We
see no justification to accept such a contention.
Nonprosecution or abandonment is certainly not withdrawal.
Withdrawal is a positive and voluntary act while non-
prosecution or abandonment may not necessarily be an act
of volition. It may spring from negligence, indifference,
inaction or even incapacity or inability to prosecute. In the
case of withdrawal steps are envisaged to be taken before
the Court in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In
the case of non-prosecution or abandonment, the election
petitioner does not appear before the Court and obtain any
orders. We have already indicated that the Act is a self-
contained statute strictly laying down its own procedure andR.N.I. No. KARBIL/2001/47147 POSTAL REGN. No. RNP/KA/BGS/2202/2017-19
Licensed to post without prepayment WPP No. 297
4
nothing can be read in it which is not there nor can its
provisions be enlarged or extended by analogy. In fact, the
terms of Section 87 of the Act clearly prescribe that if there
be no provision in the Act to the contrary, the provisions of
the Code would apply and that would include Order 9, Rule
8 of the Code, under which an election petition would be
liable to be dismissed if the election petitioner does not
appear to prosecute the election petition.”
5. In the light of the fact that the provision of the Civil Procedure Code would apply and in the light
of the absence of the petitioner, in terms of Order IX Rule 9 of CPC, the petition is liable to be
dismissed for nonprosecution.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
By Order,
( PAWAN DIWAN)
SECRETARY
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
By order and in the name of the
Governor of Karnataka
(MADHU A.C)
Under Secretary to Government
D.P.A.R (Elections).
[
ಮುದ(cid:206)ಕರು (cid:178)ಾಗೂ ಪ(cid:206)(cid:144)ಾಶಕರು:- ಸಂಕಲ(cid:163)ಾ(cid:297)(cid:144)ಾ(cid:312)ಗಳ(cid:133), ಕ(cid:163)ಾ(cid:143)ಟಕ (cid:170)ಾಜ(cid:205)ಪತ(cid:206), ಸ(cid:144)ಾ(cid:143)(cid:312) (cid:144)ೇಂದ(cid:206) ಮುದ(cid:206)(cid:158)ಾಲಯ, (cid:166)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:136)ರು