Hari Singh vs Sawan Singh and others

G.C. Mital, J.—After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to succeed.

A reading of the amendment sought to be made clearly goes to show that a new ground of corrupt practice is sought to be added by stating as follows :

"That election record has been seriously tampered with by respondent in collusion with Raj Kumar Verma, who was the Presiding Officer at the time of election ... ... ... Nomination papers of the candidates have been changed and the election result and other record of election is missing. This has been done with the view to conceal true facts and justify the illegal election of candidates who could not be elected otherwise, this is a corrupt practice. This has materially affected the election result."

It is not disputed before me that the aforesaid would be a new ground because no such ground was taken in the election petition and this ground was necessitated because of the fact that this matter come to the notice of the petitioner after the statement of Raj Kumar Verma, Presiding Officer, was recorded in Court. A reading of para 4 of the order of the Prescribed Authority shows that he was of the opinion that law with regard to amendment of pleadings was liberal and amendment could be allowed even after the limitation had gone by. This would be true only with regard to civil suits or allied proceedings but it is not true with regard to the election matters. Regarding election matters the Supreme Court has clearly held in Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamal Kidwai and others, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1249, that no fishing enquiry can be allowed nor amendment can be allowed in view of the Supreme Court decision in Ram Dayala v. Brijraj Singh and others, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 110, to add a new ground to set aside the election. This is precisely what the election petitioner (who is respondent before me) wishes to do in this case. In view of the aforesaid two Supreme Court decisions, the petitioners had to raise all possible grounds in the election petition as originally filed and at best they could be allowed to add better particulars. The amendment sought in the present case is not to furnish better particulars but to add totally a new ground which would entail a fishing enquiry otherwise on the grounds already alleged it was open to the election petitioner to cross examine the witnesses with regard to records or to produce evidence in their own favour by calling witnesses in support of the matter already raised. In view of the above, I am clearly of the view that the amendment sought for is a case of adding a fresh ground of corrupt practice and for setting aside the election, which is not justified.

However, it would be open to the election petitioner to make a fresh application to the Prescribed Authority, seeking to furnish better particulars in support of the grounds already made and when such application is filed, that would be decided in accordance with law.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is allowed, the order of the Prescribed Authority Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana) dated 24th November, 1981 is set aside and the application filed by the election petitioner for amendment of the election petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. The parties through the counsel are directed to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 12th April, 1982.