DIBAKAR PATRA Vs. JATADHARI MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application, the petitioner, who is the elected member of Zone No. 26 of Puri Zilla Parishad, has challenged the order dated 3.4.2004 (Annexure -4) passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in Election Misc. Case No. 70 of 2002 allowing the amendment of the election petition.

(2.) PETITIONER was elected as a Member of Zone No. 26 of Puri Zilla Parishad in the election held in the month of February, 2002. Opposite party No. 1, who was a candidate for the said Zone and was defeated in the election, filed an election dispute bearing Election Misc. Case No. 70 of 2002 before the learned District Judge, Puri challenging the validity of election of the present petitioner on the ground that he resorted to corrupt practice by illegally utilizing the Government machinery for putting pressure on the voters; distributing huge amount of money and materials through agents to allure the voters, obstructed the voters of their rival candidates by use of physical force and intimidation and also tampered with the ballot papers, which had been kept in sealed packets. During pendency of the election dispute, opposite party No. 1 filed a petition on dated 25.2.2003 for amendment of the election petition to incorporate further that the present petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan incurred by him on 30th June, 1996 from the Laxmi Narayan Samanga Service Co -operative Society. Petitioner raised objection to that prayer with the plea that the amendment would introduce a new plea, which has already become barred by limitation. Learned District Judge, Puri, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dated 3.4.2004 allowing the said amendment. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present application to quash the said order invoking the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR . Manoj Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1, on the other hand, contended that the present opposite party No. 1 had already alleged in the election petition that the petitioner adopted mal practice and corrupt methods to get himself elected and so, the plea in the amendment that he was also a defaulter in repayment of loan in the Co -operative Society, where he is a member, does not change the nature and character of the election petition as it simply elaborates how the petitioner concealed his legal disability and got the nomination passed. Mr. Mishra further submitted that since opposite party No. 1 had no knowledge about the above said default of the petitioner, he could not incorporate the plea in the original election petition. According to him, the period of limitation will begin from the date of knowledge of opposite party No. 1 about the default of the petitioner and because the amendment was filed soon after such knowledge, it was not at all barred by limitation. In support of his plea, Mr. Mishra cited the case of Surekha Dash v. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur and Ors., 1998 (II) OLR 43.