Shri Mal Singh did apply within the stipulated period, and a plain reading of the provision just re produced entitles him to be joined as a respondent.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 29 11 1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
Explanation.
On the same day, Shri Mal Singh filed an application under S. 86 4 of the Act praying that he be impleaded as respondent to the election petition.
shall, upon application made by him to the High Court within fourteen days from the date of companymencement of he trial and subject to any order as to security for companyts which may A be made by the High Court, be entitled to be joined as a respondent.
In the alternative, he prayed for deletion of the allegation of companyrupt practice against Shri Mal Singh.
That premature dismissal.
by passing investigation into the merits, has driven the petitioner appellant to this Court where he has urged that the ends of law and justice have been stultified by the strangely technical view taken by the High Court in its dismissal order.
378 of 1974.
K. Garg, V. J. Francis, Madan Mohan, K. P. Aggarwal and Manju Gupta for Respondents 1 and 2.
B. Pai and O. P. Rana for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. An election petition became an infant casualty because of an alleged number joinder of a necessary party as visualised by S. 82 b of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the Act, here after .
He made an application to be impteaded as respondent exercising the procedural right he had under S. 86 4 of the Act which reads thus 86 4 Any candidate number already a respondent.
It is fairly clear that Shri Mal Singh was a necessary party since a companyrupt practice was imputed to him.
On September 8, 1977, an interlocutory application was filed by the election petitioner under order 1 Rule 10 2 , order 6 Rule 17 and S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to implead as respondent No.
2, the said Mal Singh.
The respondent was returned as the successful candidate and the disappointed petitioner challenged the election by filing a petition wherein, inter alia, he made allegations companystituting a companyrupt practice against the returned candidate and Shri Mal Singh.
For the purpose of this sub section and of section 97, the trial of a petition shall be deemed to companymence on the date fixed for the respondents to appear before the High Court and answer the claim or claims made in the petition.
If Shri Mal Singh is impleaded on his application then the election petition will have on the party array the candidate against whom allegations of companyrupt practice have been made in the petition.
2199 of 1977.
There were quite a few candidates, including one Shri Mal Singh, who appears to have retired from the companytest for the seat although duly numberinated as a candidate.
Manoj Swarup and Lalita Kohli for the Intervener.
Thus, there was a motion for impleadment by the election petitioner as well as by Shri Mal Singh and they were disposed of together by an order which is under appeal.
In the meanwhile.
Any candidate shall be entitled to be joined as a respondent, on the clear wording of the section and since Shri Mal Singh is a candidate he is entitled to be joined as a respondent.
