Satbir Singh vs Executive Magistrate (S.D.M.)

G.C. Garg, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 16.8.1994, of the Executive Magistrate (S.D.M.) Sangrur whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the election Petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein) for amendment of the election petition has been allowed.

Respondent Harminder Singh filed an election petition Under Sections 13-B, 13-C and 13-G of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (for short ''the Act'') challenging the election of the petitioner herein as Sarpanch. During the pendency of the election petition, the election petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the election petition. Originally, the election petitioner made the following prayer in the election petition :

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the election of the Respondent from the office of Sarpanch of Village Akoi may kindly be set aside."

He, however, by way of proposed amendment sought the prayer in the election petition changed and to read as under :

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the election of the respondent from the office of Sarpanch of Village Akoi be set aside and the petitioner be declared as duly elected Sarpanch of Village Akoi."

It deserves to be noticed at this stage that election to the office of Sarpanch was held on 20.1.1993 and the application for amendment of the election petition was moved on 17.5.1993. From the above, it may be seen that by way of amendment the election petitioner precisely wanted to claim a further relief that in case the election of the respondent in the election petition is set aside, he (Harminder Singh) be declared as duly elected Sarpanch of Village Akoi. Prayer made in the application for amendment of the election petition was opposed by the present petitioner by filing reply wherein he inter alia took three objections that the acceptance of prayer for amendment would mean the creation of a new case; the proposed amendment was beyond period of limitation and thirdly, there was no provision for amendment in the Gram Panchayat Act. He thus prayed for dismissal of the application. The Executive Magistrate (S.D.M.) Sangrur, the Prescribed Authority constituted under the Election Rules framed under the Act, after considering the entire matter, allowed the application for amendment by his order dated 16.8.1994. Hence the respondent in the election petition being aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed that the impugned order dated 16.8.1994 may be set aside.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that this revision deserves to succeed. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions as were made before the Prescribed Authority. It deserves to be noticed at this stage that the amendment application was allowed by the prescribed Authority only by observing as under:

"After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this amendment is in the initial stage and no new ground has been added and the other side will suffer no loss if the same is allowed. This amendment is formal."

Perusal of the impugned order dated 16.8.1994 shows that the petitioner herein had raised specific objection that the application for amendment was barred by limitation and thus the same deserved to be dismissed. It was specifically submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the election in the present case was held on 20.1.93 and the application for amendment having been filed on 17.5.1993 i.e. after 30 days of the period of limitation was liable to be dismissed. The Authority below has not considered this objection at all and allowed the application simply with the observations as noticed above. Before me as well, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that amendment long after the period of limitation was over, could not be allowed as the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to enlarge the time prescribed for the presentation of the Election petition. Learned counsel in support of his contention placed strong reliance on T. Nagappa v. T.C. Basappa and Ors., AIR 1954 Mysore 102.

Admittedly, the election petitioner filed election petition u/s 13-O of the Act for setting aside the election of the present petitioner and such a petition could be filed within thirty days of the date of announcement of the result of the election in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 13-C of the Act. Section 13-G of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Prescribed Authority in the Trial. This section lays down that the Prescribed Authority should try the election petition as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of the suits. On a thorough reading of the entire Act, it is evident that the Legislature by implication made it clear that all the provisions of the CPC do not apply to the election proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. As a matter of fact there is no express provision in the Act permitting the election petitioner to amend a petition. Even if it be accepted that the Prescribed Authority can in a given situation and for the reasons to be recorded therefor, permit a party to amend the election petition, by addition or deletion of some portions thereof in respect of the substantive reliefs already prayed for or in respect of a matter for which foundation is already laid in the petition, but in my view an amendment seeking to add a new claim or a new relief beyond the period of limitation cannot be permitted. Accepting the prayer for amendment in respect of a substantive relief not earlier claimed, after the period of limitation prescribed for filing the election petition therefore is to be held without jurisdiction. Admittedly, the application for amendment in the present case seeking a substantive relief of declaration had been moved beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing an election petition and therefore, the Prescribed Authority acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the amendment. The impugned order is therefore, set aside. As a result the application filed by respondent Harminder Singh shall stand dismissed. The Prescribed Authority is now directed to dispose of the election petition in accordance with law.

Revision petition stands allowed in the above terms.