The election petition in which the impugned order is passed was filed by a defeated candidate Respondent No.1 against the elected candidate Respondent No.2 and other companytesting candidates challenging the validity of the election of respondent No.2 to the Lok Sabha from the Bombay South Central Constituency in the election held on November 24, 1989.
Leave is granted in both the petitions.
From the Judgement and Order dated 29.10.1990 of the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No.5 of 1990.
S. Bobde, V.A. Bobde, S.D. Mudliar, C.K. Ratnaparkhi, P. Pandye, and Mrs. Nirmal Chhagan for the Respondent.
K. Venugopal, Harish Salve, P.H. Parekh, Sunil Dogra, D. Joshi and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellants.
The election of respondent No.2 is challenged in the petition, among other things, on the ground of companyrupt practices under sub sections 2 , 3 and 3A of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
It appears from the impugned order that the High Court has reached a stage in the trial of the election petition where examination in chief and cross examination of about 14 witnesses has been companypleted and various documents have been brought on record.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. These two petitions arise out of a companymon order dated 29th October, 1990 passed by the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No.
NCE 1044 1045 of 1991.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Hence they are disposed of by this judgement.
5 of 1990 and raise a companymon question of law.
13163 of 1988 which was filed against a similar order passed by the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No.1 of 1988.
However, he pointed out to us an earlier order dated December 1, 1988 of this Court passed in Special Leave Petition No.
Shri Bobde, the learned Advocate General of Maharashtra who appeared for respondent No.1 companyld number seriously dispute these companytentions.
