BASHIR MUSA PATEL Vs. SATYAWAN GANPAT JAWKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court, made on 11/12-2-191 in Election Petition No. 13/90. It is not necessary to adumberate all the corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the appellant mentioned in the election petition filed by the respondents. It would appear that the appellant had filed an application to dismiss the election petition on a preliminary ground that the required particulars of corrupt practices are lacing in the election petition and, therefore, no cause of action has been furnished to proceed further in the election petition. That objection was overruled. Subsequently, a petition has been filed to dismiss the election petition itself. In the impugned order, the learned Judge while holding that "the particulars are lacking" has held that what is missing from the petition are "merely particulars" and held that u/S. 86 () of the Representation of Peoples Act, the Court has discretion to direct the party to furnish the particulars. Accordingly, he directed to furnish the particulars as mentioned in the operative part of the order which reads thus:

(3.) This direction is now the subject matter of this appeal. Shri Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the respondent, in fairness, has stated that the Court cannot give a new cause of action by directing to furnish the particulars which are not already part of the election petition but he sought to sustain the order stating that these are only amplifications of the material allegations made of the corrupt practices in the election petition. Therefore, they are no new facts or constitute no new cause of action. We do not agree with the learned counsel. These facts do furnish the further particulars filling up the gaps which are found in the election petition. Having found that these particulars are missing, the learned Judge has committed an obvious error in giving the direction to furnish those particulars; in other words, providing an opportunity to the respondents to fill in the gap which would gravely prejudice the appellant at the trial. Under this situation, the impugned directions stands set aside and it would be open to the learned Judge to proceed with the trial of the matter in accordance with law.