SATBIR SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE S D M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 16. 8. 1994, of the Executive Magistrate (S. D. M.) Sangrur whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the election Petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein) for amendment of the election petition has been allowed.

(2.) RESPONDENT Harminder Singh filed an election petition Under Sections 13-B, 13-C and 13-g of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') challenging the election of the petitioner herein as Sarpanch. During the pendency of the election petition, the election petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the election petition. Originally, the election petitioner made the following prayer in the election petition :

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the election petitioner filed election petition Under Section 13-O of the Act for setting aside the election of the present petitioner and such a petition could be filed within thirty days of the date of announcement of the result of the election in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 13-C of the Act. Section 13-G of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Prescribed Authority in the Trial. This section lays down that the Prescribed Authority should try the election petition as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of the suits. On a thorough reading of the entire Act, it is evident that the Legislature by implication made it clear that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the election proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. As a matter of fact there is no express provision in the Act permitting the election petitioner to amend a petition. Even if it be accepted that the Prescribed Authority can in a given situation and for the reasons to be recorded therefor, permit a party to amend the election petition, by addition or deletion of some portions thereof in respect of the substantive reliefs already prayed for or in respect of a matter for which foundation is already laid in the petition, but in my view an amendment seeking to add a new claim or a new relief beyond the period of limitation cannot be permitted. Accepting the prayer for amendment in respect of a substantive relief not earlier claimed, after the period of limitation prescribed for filing the election petition therefore is to be held without jurisdiction. Admittedly, the application for amendment in the present case seeking a substantive relief of declaration had been moved beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing an election petition and therefore, the Prescribed Authority acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the amendment. The impugned order is therefore, set aside. As a result the application filed by respondent Harminder Singh shall stand dismissed. The Prescribed Authority is now directed to dispose of the election petition in accordance with law.