PARASMAL SAKLECHA Vs. HIMAT KOTHARI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER and respondent No. 1 to 7, amongst others were candidates at the 219 Ratlam Nagar Assembly constituency general elections held in the year 2003. Petitioner contested as official Congress -I candidate and respondent No. 1 as official candidate of B.J.P. Respondent No. 1 polled highest number of votes therefore he was declared elected on 04.12.2003. Election of respondent No. l to the State Assembly from 219 Ratlam Nagar Assembly constituency is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) THE election of respondent No. l is challenged under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). A careful scrutiny of paragraph 8(A) to 8(Y) of the petition reveals the following corrupt practices have been alleged: - A. Para 8(A) to 8(L) Corrupt Practice under Section 123(1)(A)(b)of the Act. B. Para 8(M)&8(N) Corrupt Practice under Section 123(3) of the Act. C. Para 8(O), 8(R), Para 8(V), Para (W) & Para 8(X) Corrupt Practice under Section 123(4) of the Act. D. Para 8(Q) Corrupt Practice under Section 123(6) of the Act. E. Para 8(P), Para 8(S) Corrupt acts were done by the resp. Para 8(T), Para 8(U) Para 8(Y) No. 1 or his agent or persons which have materially affected the election prospect of the petitioner leading to his defeat only by small margin of votes.

(3.) AFTER service of notice, only respondent No. l has filed the written statement denying each and every allegation made in the petition. Respondent No. l has also filed two applications -I.A. 4974/04 under Or.VII R.11 CPC and I.A. 4975/04 under Sec. 86 of the Act. Learned counsel for Petitioner has filed replies to these two applications. It is contended in reply that objections raised in applications filed on behalf of respondent No. l can be decided at the time of final disposal based upon the evidence adduced by the parties and trial must proceed. After the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 were over, learned counsel for the petitioner before advancing oral reply filed I.A. No. 6048/04 an application under Section 86 r/w Or.VI R.17 C.P.C. Learned counsel for respondent No. l filed reply to this application and has opposed the proposed amendments.