The other ground which weighed with the learned Judge was that numbercase had been made out for summoning the.document.
The relevant details of these dead electors is annexed along with as Annexure P 9.
The appellant then filed the election petition assailing the election on various grounds as detailed therein.
5 of 1992 are under challenge.
Thereafter on January 4, 1993 the appellant filed an application praying for amendment of the Election Petition which was rejected by the other impugned order.
8, 35, 44, 56 and 57.
16 Ballot Paper Account of booth Nos.
When the results were declared it was found that Respondent I had secured the highest number of votes and thereby won the election followed by the appellant, who secured 7 votes less than her, and the other respondents.
I to 125 and marked companyies of the electoral roll of booth Nos.
In companyrse of the trial that followed the appellant examined himself to substantiate the allegations made by him in the petition and thereafter moved an application on October 22, 1992 seeking production of Form No.
Having companysidered the materials on record in the light of the relevant rules and circulars we are unable to sustain either of the above grounds.
In rejecting the prayer of the appellant for production of the marked companyy of the electoral roll the learned Judge first observed that as that document was included in sub clause d of Rule 93 1 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 Elections Rules for short it should number be allowed to be produced to maintain secrecy of the election.
The ground, which is relevant for our present purposes, finds place in paragraph 18 of the Election Petition which reads as under That twenty two bogus votes of dead electors by impersonation were cast in favour of Respondent I at the instance of Respondent 1 and her supporters.
16 but rejected the other prayer by the impugned order dated November 2, 1992.
After hearing the parties the learned trial Judge allowed the prayer of the appellant so far as it related to the production of Form No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJEE, J. Special leave granted in both the petitions.
In these two appeals orders dated November 2, 1992 and May 28, 1993 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana in Election Petition No.
Facts leading to the filing of these appeals and relevant for their disposal are as under The appellant and the four respondents herein companytested the election of 99 Moga Assembly Constituency polling for which took place on February 19, 1992.
