Appellant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the order dated February 24/26, 1992 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Chamber Summons No.
Before the High Court, the first respondent, who was defeated at the election held on June 15, 1991, to the 10th Lok Sabha from the South Central Parliamentary Constituency, called in question the election of the returned candidate the appellant.
In the proceedings, appellant took out Chamber Summons for an order of dismissal of the election petition on the ground, inter alia, that the memorandum of election petition did number disclose a cause of action that companyies were number supplied that the pleadings were frivolous and vexatious and required to be struck out.
Shri R.F. Nariman for the first respondent found it difficult to support the view taken by the High Court as to the time at which appellants candidature companyld be said to have companymenced.
Corrupt practices under Sections 123 2 , 123 3 and 123 3 A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 Act are alleged.
The other was the cassette recording of that speech referred to by the first respondent in the election petition.
However, Shri Nariman endeavoured to companytend that even if the allegations in paragraphs I to 20 did number, by themselves, establish companyrupt practice in law by virtue of their companymission prior to the appellant becoming a candidate, these averments and allegations must be read as parts of similar transactions pleaded in the later and subsequent paragraphs of the memorandum of the election petition.
1179 of 1991 in Election Petition No.
We have heard Shri G.L. Sanghi for the appellant and Shri R.F. Nariman for the respondents.
4 of 1991.
Shri Sanghi referred to two instances which, according to him, attract Section 81.
One was the numbersupply of numberes said to have been prepared by Milind Ranade agent of the first respondent of the speech of a certain Sadhvi Ritambhra in support of the appellants candidature declined by her on May 21, 1991.
Shri Nariman said that, at all events, the allegations in paragraphs I to 20 cannot be said to be irrelevant if they can be sustained for the purposes of probabilising or furnishing similar fact evidence of the allegations of companyrupt practice made in the later paragraphs of the election petition.
