Non-Party Cannot Reopen Settled Issues on Affidavit Defect: Orissa High Court Dismisses Plea to Strike Down Election Petition for Lack of Form-25

In a definitive ruling on judicial finality, procedural discipline, and constructive res judicata, the Orissa High Court dismissed an interlocutory application seeking dismissal of an election petition for alleged non-filing of the affidavit in Form-25 as required under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Justice Sashikanta Mishra, while rejecting the application filed by Madhab Dhada, held that the plea was barred by constructive res judicata, as the same or substantially similar objections had already been adjudicated and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and the applicant could not now “repackage previously rejected contentions under a new procedural label.”

"Liberty to File Application Is Not License to Re-litigate" – High Court Declines Reconsideration of Form-25 Objection

The interlocutory application—I.A. No. 129 of 2025—was filed by the respondent in ELPET No. 04 of 2024, praying for dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on the ground that the election petitioner failed to file a mandatory affidavit in Form-25 in support of allegations of corrupt practice.

However, this very objection had been considered earlier by the Court in I.A. Nos. 83 and 84 of 2024, and the applications were dismissed by a reasoned order dated 16.05.2025, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 17478–17479 of 2025. Although the apex court expunged certain observations made in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the High Court's order, it upheld the operative conclusion rejecting the request for dismissal of the petition.

Rejecting the respondent’s fresh attempt to revive the same plea, Justice Mishra observed:

“Once this Court has already adjudicated the very same or substantially similar grounds... and such adjudication has attained finality, this Court cannot, under the guise of the present application, review or reconsider its own concluded findings.”

Constructive Res Judicata Applies to Different Stages of Same Election Proceedings

A significant facet of the judgment lies in the High Court’s reinforcement of the principle of constructive res judicata under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Court held that failure to raise the Form-25 issue during the earlier applications—despite the allegations of corrupt practices being on record—amounted to waiver of that objection.

“It was always open to the respondent to contend that the allegations made in the concerned pleadings amounted to corrupt practice for which Form-25 affidavit was necessary. But not having done so at the relevant time, he cannot be permitted to do so now.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (1986) 1 SCC 100, the Court emphasized:

“An adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated… The first reason, therefore, has absolutely no force.”

It further relied on the ruling in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [1960] 3 SCR 590, reiterating that:

“The principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation… The Court, having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way, will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again.”

“Court Becomes Functus Officio Once Issue Is Decided” – No Review Without Legal Basis

The Court decisively ruled that once an issue is decided and affirmed by a superior forum, the Court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain subsequent applications seeking collateral review of the same matter.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kewal Chand Mimani v. S.K. Sen, (2001) 6 SCC 512, Justice Mishra noted:

“Liberty to mention cannot be used as a means to achieve an advantage which is not otherwise available in law. A question which stands finally decided cannot be reopened… review of a judgment cannot be had on the basis of this liberty.”

In response to the petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s observation—“if any applications are made, they will be considered on their own merits”—the Court clarified that such general liberty cannot be interpreted as license to reopen matters already heard and decided.

“Such liberty has to be treated as general in nature and not to reopen issues already settled or to permit a collateral review of the final adjudication.”

Form-25 Allegation Already Addressed; Defect, If Any, Was Curable and Already Rectified

The core allegation in the fresh application was that the election petition was not maintainable ab initio due to non-filing of the Form-25 affidavit, as required under Section 83(1)(c) proviso and Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The respondent had argued that the defect was fatal and incurable.

However, the Court had already examined this issue, including whether the allegations in paragraphs 8A–8G amounted to corrupt practices, in its earlier judgment, and had permitted the election petitioner to file an affidavit, which was subsequently done.

Although the Supreme Court later expunged the Court’s direction granting three weeks for such filing, it did not unsettle the finding that non-filing of Form-25 was not fatal in the facts of the case.

Hence, the High Court declined to revisit the plea: “Liberty granted to file any other application cannot include an application which has already been considered and decided on merits and confirmed by the higher forum.”

Conclusion: Attempt to Reopen Final Adjudication Rejected; Election Petition to Proceed

Ultimately, the High Court found no merit in the attempt to revive objections already considered and rejected.

“From a conspectus of the analysis of facts and law as well as the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered view that the present application is not maintainable.”

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

“In the result, this application is dismissed as being not maintainable.”

The Court directed the Election Petition to be listed on 15th January, 2026, for settlement of issues, signaling that the trial on the substantive allegations would now proceed.

Date of Decision: 19 December 2025