Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Deepak Khot held that a security deposit of ₹250, as mandated under Rule 19(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipality (Election Petition) Rules, 1962, may be made on the same day the revision is presented at the filing window. The Court clarified that such a deposit constitutes sufficient compliance with the Rule and does not warrant dismissal of the revision. The decision came while rejecting an objection raised against the maintainability of a revision petition under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, where it was alleged that the deposit was made after filing. The Court found the deposit timely and valid, thereby dismissing the interlocutory application challenging the petition’s maintainability.

The matter arises from a petition filed under Article 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 by the petitioner challenging an order dated 07.10.2025 passed in an election petition before the 1st Additional District Judge, Sidhi. The respondent filed an application seeking dismissal of the revision on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 19(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipality (Election Petition) Rules, 1962, asserting that the petitioner failed to deposit Rs. 250 as security “at the time of presentation” of the revision.

Also Read: “Hardened Criminals Entering Court Premises In Lawyers’ Dress”: Supreme Court Calls For “Firm, Swift Action” To Prevent Violence Inside Courts

The respondent argued that the security deposit was made only after generation of the case number and therefore after presentation, relying on decisions interpreting “presentation” to mean filing, delivering, and showing, and contending that non-deposit at that moment rendered the revision invalid under the mandatory rule. The respondent also objected that the deposit was made in the name of the counsel instead of the petitioner.

The petitioner submitted that the security amount was deposited simultaneously with filing at the window of the filing section. The receipt of deposit appeared at page 104 of the 105-page memo of petition and formed part of the record scrutinized by the filing section. It was also submitted that the filing process includes entry, scrutiny, removal of defects, and preparation for listing, and that the deposit was placed before the scrutiny assistant during this process.

The petitioner relied on the checker’s report, generated the same day at 4:48 p.m., showing that the petition was properly drawn, duly stamped, within time, and accompanied by necessary documents. The petitioner further submitted that deposit through counsel was permissible since counsel held the authority to file the petition.

The Court Observed: "If petitioner has deposited the amount of security, as required under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962, simultaneously with the presentation of the case at the filing window and the same has been submitted with memo of petition during filing, this Court finds that it is sufficient compliance of Rule 19 of Rules 1962".

The Court stated that the memo of petition consisted of 105 pages and that “at page 104, the receipt of deposit of Rs.250/- is attached… it can be gathered that it has become a part of the memo of petition before the checker and scrutiny assistant has checked/scrutinized the file at the time of presentation.” It recorded that no objection was endorsed regarding non-compliance.

The Court noted the petitioner’s assertion that the petition was presented at the filing window and “simultaneously has also applied to the Registrar General for deposit of the said security deposit… which is apparent from Annexure IA/1.” It acknowledged the objection that the covering memo stated the case had been filed, but stated: “This Court has no reason to doubt that such deposit has been made simultaneously with presentation of the petition at the window of filing section after generation of case number.”

On the meaning of “presentation,” the Court recorded: “filing of a case is said to be complete when it reaches the scrutiny assistant who scrutinize the filing and put his report… Then the matter is forwarded to the Entry Assistant… Rule 9 provides that after making of entry mentioned in Rule 8, a defect-free main case shall be posted for admission.”

The Court observed: “It is usual practice that when any case is filed, the formalities in regard to payment of court fees or other security deposit are done simultaneously at the time of presentation.” It then stated: “In present case in hand, the same has been done and made part of petition before scrutiny of the file, thus it cannot be said that compliance of Rule 19(2)… has not been made.”

Also Read: ‘Parties Were Well Acquainted’: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Raping, Extorting And Intimidating Municipal Chairperson Using Obscene Photographs And Videos

Regarding the objection that the receipt was in counsel’s name, the Court recorded: “When the amount of security on behalf of petitioner has been deposited by the counsel who has the power of attorney to file the petition, then it is not required that such receipt should contain name of the petitioner.”

The Court directed that “the objections raised by the respondent are not in consonance of law and are hereby rejected. Accordingly, I.A. No.21733/2025 stands rejected.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Joyveer Singh Saini.
For the Respondents: Ravish Chandra Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Himanshu, Advocate; Shri Suyash Mohan Guru, Advocate (on caveat).

Case Title: Shankar Prasad Gupta v. Lovkesh Singh
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-JBP:52815
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 1110 of 2025
Bench: Justice Deepak Khot