CPC Impleadment Rules Don’t Apply to Election Disputes: Orissa High Court Rejects Plea to Add Respondent in Pending IAs

“Election Law is a Special Code—No Joinder of Parties Permitted Unless Relief is Claimed or Statute Allows It,” In a significant ruling reaffirming the autonomous procedural scheme governing election petitions, the Orissa High Court dismissed an interlocutory application filed in Election Petition seeking impleadment of a co-respondent in multiple pending IAs. Justice Ananda Chandra Behera held that the power of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC does not apply to election proceedings, and that Rule 27(a) of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 mandates separate applications for separate interlocutory reliefs.

The Court concluded that respondent No.2 in the main election petition had no role in the pending IAs, which were entirely between the returned candidate and the election petitioner. Consequently, the attempt to implead him was held to be “not entertainable under law” and intended to frustrate the expeditious disposal of the petition.

Election Petition Relating to Alleged Non-Compliance with RP Act—Returned Candidate Seeks to Add Co-Respondent in Procedural IAs

The dispute arose from Election Petition No. 9 of 2024, filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act), wherein allegations of corrupt practices and statutory non-compliance were made against the returned candidate, Pratyusha Rajeswari Singh (respondent No.1). Several interlocutory applications were filed by her seeking dismissal of the petition:

• I.A. No. 113 of 2024: For dismissal due to lack of mandatory affidavit in Form 25 under Section 83(1) RP Act.

• I.A. No. 114 of 2024: For rejection of petition for procedural violations under Section 81(3) and Section 83(2) RP Act.

• I.A. No. 117 of 2024: To strike out certain paragraphs from the petition under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC.

Subsequently, on 7th July 2025, respondent No.1 (the returned candidate) filed I.A. No. 93 of 2025 seeking to implead Hemanta Kumar Prusty (respondent No.2 in the main petition, added later by order dated 11.12.2024) as a party to all three pending IAs.

Court Rejects Application as Procedurally Infirm and Legally Unsustainable

Justice Behera categorically rejected the impleadment plea on multiple grounds:

Violation of Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules

The Court emphasized that under Rule 27(a), Chapter VI, Part II, Volume I of the Orissa High Court Rules:

“A party seeking an interim relief is required to file separate petition for the same.”

Since I.A. No. 93 of 2025 sought a single impleadment across three distinct applications (each invoking different statutory provisions), it was procedurally barred:

“A single petition... for the impleadment of respondent No.2... in three I.As... is not entertainable under law.” [Para 7]

No Relief Claimed Against Respondent No.2 in IAs

The Court noted that the pending IAs dealt exclusively with procedural defects in the filing of the main election petition, and no allegations or reliefs were directed against respondent No.2:

“The respondent No.2... is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024.” [Para 10]

The Court held that impleadment is permissible only when the party’s presence is necessary for effective adjudication—a standard not met in the present case.

CPC Impleadment Rules Inapplicable in Election Petitions

The petitioner invoked Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to support impleadment. The Court, however, reaffirmed that election petitions are governed exclusively by the RP Act, a special code, and that CPC cannot override it:

“The concept of joinder of a party... in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be imported to the trial of an election petition.” [Para 8]

The Court cited the binding authority of B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India, (1991 Supp. 2 SCC 624), where the Supreme Court held that CPC’s impleadment provisions do not apply to election petitions.

No Explanation Provided for Why Impleadment Was Necessary

Crucially, the Court pointed out that the petitioner had not even attempted to explain how respondent No.2 was necessary to decide the procedural IAs:

“Nowhere, in the petition... has respondent No.1 indicated... why... Hemanta Kumar Prusty is necessary for adjudication of the I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024.” [Para 10]

Thus, the prayer was found to be without merit and liable to be dismissed.

Rejected as Frivolous and Delay-Oriented Attempt

In a sharp observation, the Court also noted the timing of the application—filed eight months after the IAs were instituted, suggesting an attempt to derail or delay adjudication:

“The application appears to have been filed not for any legal necessity, but only in order to frustrate the expeditious disposal of the election petition.”

Impleadment Petition Dismissed—CPC Cannot Be Invoked in RP Act Proceedings

Dismissing I.A. No. 93 of 2025 “on contest,” the High Court reiterated that election petitions are self-contained codes governed by strict procedural requirements and cannot be expanded by importing general civil procedure principles. The Court thus clarified that procedural purity is essential in election matters, and every interlocutory relief must stand on its own footing.

Date of Decision: 21 November 2025