KRISHNA TIRATH Vs. KALKA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question to be decided in this application is as to whether the petitioner be or be not permitted to amend the election petition, which was instituted on 1st August, 1991.

(2.) The petitioner has alleged that in para 14.1 of the petition a reference has been made about the speech of one Shri K.C. Ravi, which was made in the presence of respondent No. I and is a corrupt practice. Respondent No. I has been misconstruing this para and claiming that Mr. K.C. Ravi, mentioned in the said para is the same person as Mr. Kishan Chand Ravi, who is the District President of Bhartya Janta Party and also a candidate in the election. According to the petitioner, the said contention raised by respondent No. 1 is a dialatory tactic to delay the disposal of the petition. Petitioner further alleges that respondent No. I had filed I.A.11032 of 1991 praying that election petition be dismissed for not impleading the said Kishan Chand Ravi as allegations of corrupt practice have been raised against him in the petition and he was also a candidate for the Parliamentary election. Moving of the said miscellaneous application was also an attempt on the part of respondent No. I to further delay the disposal of the election petition. Petitioner by way of reply to the said miscellaneous application had clarified that Mr. K.C. Ravi, referred to in para 14.1 of the petition is not the same person as Mr. Kishan Chand Ravi, the BJ.P. District President. It was also clarified that Mr. K.C. Ravi, as referred to in para 14.1 of the petititon was a recent refugee from Punjab. After making these averments, the petitioner in para-6 of the application states that she seeks to amend the election petition by supplying additional particulars of the corrupt practice already alleged in para 14.1 of the petition.The amendment sought for has also been quoted in para 6 of the application that Speaker K.C. Ravi (not Kishan Chand Ravi, District B.J.P. President.

(3.) This application has vehemently been opposed by respondent No. I on a number of grounds, e.g. that the application is highly belated and is mala fide. Petitioner wants to wriggle out of the stand, which she has taken in the original petition, knowing fully well that K.C. Ravi whom she had referred in para 14.1 of the election petition was a candidate in the election and realising that by not impleading him, the petition was likely to be dismissed, she has after a period of more than 3 years come forward in seeking amendment to the election petition. Amendment prayed for, if allowed, will not only prejudice the case of respondent No. I but also cause irreparable injury. Parties have also led evidence on issue No. 16 framed in this case and now realising her difficulty she is trying to wriggle out of the stand taken in the original petition.