KALYAN MAL MINA Vs. RATAN LAL TAMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this election petition, the petitioner has submitted an application for leave to present the replication to the reply filed by the non-petitioner.

(2.) The non-petitioner has raised a preliminary objection to the filing of the replication. Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the non-petitioner, submitted that there is no provision under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") permitting filing of replication and the scheme of the provisions on the contrary appears to be that by necessary implication and intendment, filing of replication by the petitioner is excluded even with the permission of the Court. Shri Singhvi referred to the provisions contained in Sections 83, 86 (5) and 97 of the Act and submitted that the election petitioner is required to state all material facts on which the petitioner relies and full particulars of the corrupt practice have to be alleged by the petitioner and under Sub-section (5) of Section 86, the Court is empowered to allow the particulars of any corrupt practice to be amended or amplified but the Court is prohibited to allow any amendment which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged. It is only under Section 97 when recrimination is filed, according to Mr. Singhvi, replication is permissible. Mr. Singhvi urged that Section 87 cannot be pressed into service with a view that replication can be submitted with the leave of the Court in the face of the provisions contained in Section 83 and Section 86 (5).

(3.) Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand refuted the contention of Shri Singhvi, learned counsel for the non-petitioner, and urged that the scope of Section 87 has been considered by the Supreme Court in Dr. Rajendra Kumari Bajpai v. Ram Adhar Yadav ((1975) 2 SCC 447). Shri Mehta urged that there is no provision in the Act which may be considered to be inconsistent with the provision contained in Order 8, Rule 9, C. P. C., nor that provision can be considered to be excluded expressly or by necessary intends ment. Thus, 6. 8 Rule 9, C. P. C. will fully apply and the petitioner is entitled only with the leave of the Court, to submit replication. The provisions of the Act do not in any way envisage exclusion of the provision of Order 8 Rule 9, C. P. C.