Person In Election Petition Cannot Seek For Transposition On Ground Of Collusion Between Election Petitioner & Successful Candidate: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Writ Petition preferred against the Order of the Senior Civil Judge in an Election Petition.

The Karnataka High Court held that a person in an Election Petition cannot seek for transposition on the ground of collusion between the Election Petitioner and the successful candidate.
The Dharwad Bench held thus in a Writ Petition preferred against the Order of the Senior Civil Judge in an Election Petition.
A Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, “I answer the point raised by holding that respondent in a election petition cannot seek for transposition as a petitioner in the election petition on the ground of collusion between the election petitioner and the successful candidate or any other ground. If at all, a candidate in an election is aggrieved, such candidate would be required to file necessary election petition in terms of the applicable law within the applicable time frame fixed thereto.”
Advocate Girish A. Yadawad appeared for the Petitioner while AGA V.S. Kalasurmath and Advocate S.S. Beturmath appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Respondent No.1 had filed an Election Petition against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and the Petitioner under Section 21 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (KMA), sought the relief of declaration to the effect that the Respondent No. 2’s election to Amingad Pattan Panchayat was void and illegal and for declaration that he was the successful candidate.
Alleging that there was collusion between the Respondent No. 1 and 2, the Petitioner filed an Application for being transposed as a Petitioner in the aforesaid Election Petition but the same was dismissed vide an Order passed by the Senior Civil Judge. Challenging this Order, the Petitioner was before the High Court. He sought to quash the said Order, and permit him to lead additional evidence on the additional issue framed in the interest of justice and equity.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “An election petition could be filed only in terms of the grounds mentioned under sub-Section (1) of Section 23 of the Act and orders passed thereon. Reading of Sections 21 and 23 of the Act would indicate that any petition challenging an election would have to be filed by a candidate or a voter within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election.”
The Court was of the view that a challenge to an election is a serious matter and any such challenge can be made only in terms of the applicable statute and not otherwise.
“Section 21 of the Act clearly mandating that a challenge has to be made within 15 days, any person aggrieved by the election is required to file the said election petition within 15 days of the declaration of election and not otherwise. There is no vested right created in the respondent to the election petition as regards the relief, which has been sought for in election petition. Whether a respondent supports the claim of the petitioner or not is immaterial, it is for the election petitioner to establish his case”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court said that, if at all the Petitioner was aggrieved by the election of the successful candidate, he could have always filed a separate Election Petition, challenging the said election which could have been tried along with the Petition or independently. It added that, since this was not done within 2 years after the election, the question of Respondent in an Election Petition seeking for transposition as a Petitioner to continue the Petition and therefore challenge the election of the successful candidate would not arise there being no vested right in favour of such a Respondent, the same being barred under Section 21 of KMA.
“The transposition of a party in a proceeding as a petitioner/plaintiff can only arise if there is a vested right or interest in such person to seek for the relief sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff and where the right could be decided by the Court”, it also observed.
The Court noted that the Petitioner not having filed Election Petition, cannot seek for transposition after more than two years of the filing of the Election Petition by the Respondent No.1 and such a relief being time barred cannot be granted in favour of the Petitioner, even if allowed to be transposed.
“In view of my answer to the aforesaid point formulated, the petitioner in the present case being a respondent and not having independently challenged the election of respondent No.2 could not have filed an application for transposition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by trial Court”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Kudleppa v. Mahantesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:162)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Girish A. Yadawad
Respondents: AGA V.S. Kalasurmath, Advocates S.S. Beturmath, and K.L. Patil.