SUBODH KR BEURIA Vs. BHAIRAB CH MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed the application for amendment of his election petition on 209-71. The respondent filed his counter on 7-10-71. When this matter came up for hearing on 8-10-71, petitioner filed another application for amendment of certain particulars in the amendment petition on the ground of inadvertent omission and typographical error. Both parties were heard on that day in the matter of the two amendment petitions filed and orders were reserved. On 22-10-71, respondent filed a petition for amendment of his counter to the first amendment petition on the ground that it is necessitated in view of the application filed on 8-10-71.

(2.) THE petitioner Subodh Kumar Beuria claiming to be an elector in the Cuttack city Assembly constituency filed the election petition challenging the election of the respondent. The result of the election was declared on 10-3-71 under Section 66 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). The election petition was filed in this Court on 23-4-71 within the period as prescribed under Section 81 (1) of the Act. The respondent filed his written statement on 9-8-71. Issues were settled on 23-8-71.

(3.) BY the application filed by the petitioner on 8-10-71, he seeks to make two amendments in the original amendment petition. The first relates to correction of the registration number of one of the vehicles mentioned at page 3 of the the amendment petition by making it ORC 3183 in the place of ORC 3188. This is said to be a typographical error. The second relates to addition of the words "as well as the expenses incurred in the use of the vehicle ORC 7646 after the word "vehicle" in the first line at page 4 of the amendment petition. By this, user of one more vehicle is sought to be added to those already referred to in the amendment petition. If the amendment petition is to be allowed addition of one more vehicle would not make 'any difference and if the amendment is not to be allowed even by amending the petition, nothing material can be achieved. Therefore, in my opinion, there can be no objection to allow the application dated 8-10-71 permitting amendment of the amendment petition as prayed for.