BELI RAM Vs. J.B.L. KHACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four election petitions No. 3/72, 4/72, 9/72 and 11/72, and the Respondents have raised certain preliminary objections for which issues have been framed. The respective parties were called upon to produce evidence in respect of these issues. Since most of the issues deal with common questions of law and facts, the four petitions have been consolidated and connected and a single judgment disposes of such preliminary issues.

(2.) These preliminary issues relate to defects pointed out under Sec. 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. It has been stated that a concised statement of material facts [Section 83(1)(a)], and full particulars of any corrupt practice [Section 83(1)(a)], have not been provided as required by this section. It has been further stated that the affidavits filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice are not in the prescribed forms. It is also a plea in one of the petitions, No. 11/72, that the annexure submitted with the petition has not been signed and verified in manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure [Section 83(1)(a)].

(3.) It is abundantly clear from Sec. 86 that any defect pointed out in the petition with reference to Sec. 83 is not fatal to the petition. Sec. 83 is, no doubt, mandatory and requires the election petition to contain, first a concise statement of material facts, and then requires the fullest possible particulars. The word "material" shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The function of particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. The material facts will show the ground of corrupt practice and the complete cause of action and the particulars will give the necessary information to present a full picture of the cause of action. (See Samant N. Balakrishna v/s. George Fernandez ( : A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1201). Another case of the Supreme Court which is latest is reported in Raj Narain v/s. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi ( : A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1302). Their Lordships have reiterated the previous view and have further held that any defect in the supply of material facts and particulars so as to hold that a cause of action is not made out, is not curable by supply of such facts and particulars at a later stage and after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for submitting an election petition. I have, therefore, to keep guard against this, that material facts and particulars now sought to be supplied cannot be made to set up a fresh cause of action not available to the Petitioners, on the dates they submitted their election petitions. It is manifest, that the four election petitions cannot be dismissed on this preliminary ground, because one or more causes of action are set out in each petition and material facts and particulars of corrupt practice for such cause of action are already available. It is only in respect of some causes of action that full particulars are required to be given, which I have specified in the several appendices given at the end of this judgment and which are part of the judgment. These further particulars are required to be given by the Petitioners concerned, accompanied by proper affidavits duly signed and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure as provided under Sec. 83, within a period of one month; failing that, the Petitioners would not be entitled to furnish any such further particulars, with the resultant consequence of a decision in favour or against them relating to the election petition.