RAM NATH KALIA Vs. PAUL SINGH HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Election Tribunal dated 14-5-1958 dismissing an election petition under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE tacts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are that Shri Ram Nath Kalia filed an election petition challenging the election of Shri Paul Singh respondent who had been declared elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Raikot constituency in the vacancy caused by the death of Shri Wazir Singh. The result, of the election was declared and published on 28-11-1957 and a petition for setting aside the election was presented on 8-1-1958. The petition was resisted on the merits and some preliminary objections were also raised to the verification of the petition and to the vague nature of the allegations of corrupt practices contained in it. The petitioner-appellant in reply offered to amend the petition which was opposed on behalf of the returned candidate. The Tribunal thereupon framed the following preliminary issues-

(3.) UNDER issue No. 1 the Tribunal held that the amendment of the verification could under the law be allowed by the Tribunal. With respect to issues Nos. 2 and 3 the learned Tribunal observed that all the necessary particulars required under Section 83 of the Representation of the people Act had not been supplied by the petitioner, but it held that the petitioner could be allowed to amend his petition only for the purpose of supplying certain particulars necessary for making the charges specific; no fresh charge of corrupt practices could, in the opinion of the tribunal, be permitted to be added by way of amendment. The learned Tribunal thereupon allowed the petition on 6-5-1958 to be amended in certain particulars conditional on payment of Rs. 50/- as costs to the opposite party; the amended petition was ordered to be put in on 9-5-1958. It appears that on 9-5-1958 the petitioner was absent and his learned counsel prayed for further time in order to be able to comply with the orders of the Tribunal. As a matter of indulgence, an adjournment was allowed to him on payment of Rs. 18/- as conditional costs for compliance with the order dated 6-5-1958. On 14-5-1958 an amended petition was sought to be put in by the petitioner appellant but without paying the costs; the petitioner stating that he was not in a position to pay the costs. The learned Tribunal, observing that the orders dated 6th and 9th May 1958 had not been complied with in spite of the fact that an adjournment had been granted to the petitioner at the express request of his counsel on the 9-5-1958 to enable him to comply with these orders, dismissed the petition under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner was also held liable to pay the costs of the proceedings amounting to Rs. 100-/.