116 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for an appeal to the High Court under the Code of Civil Procedure from any decree or order.
In appeal before the High Court Sharma by his application dated April 28, 1968, repeated his request for leave to amend the petition in the manner set out in his application dated December 1, 1965 and December 6, 1965.
C. Chagla, Rameshwar Nath, for the interveners.
K. Sen, S. N. Mishra, S. K. Mukherjee, A. T. M. Sampat, R. Agarwal and E. C. Agarwala, for the appellant.
Bhaskar Kathote of the Bhartiya Chitra.
370 00 Bhaskar Kathote explained that he was asked to give a voucher companytaining the words ,including companyt of cloth , even though the cloth was supplied to him by Mishra This statement is supported by a carbon companyy of the bill dated April 27, 1963 Ext.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. At an election held in June 1963 for electing a member from the Kasdol Constituency in the State of Madhya Pradesh, D. P. Mishra who stood as a candidate on the Congress ticket was declared elected.
of the order of the Tribunal under section 98 or section 99 Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for number preferring the appeal within such period.
6,300/ .
The rival candidate Kamal Narayan Sharma filed a petition for setting aside the election of Mishra on the grounds that the latter had companymitted companyrupt practices at the election in that he offered to bribe Sharma, by offering through his agent Dr. Ausaf Hussain to pay Sharma a sum of Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 12, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
The particulars were of the election expenses.
b ii , b iii , b iv , b v , b vi , b vii , b viii , b ix , c i , c ii , c iii , c iv and c v of paragraphs were set out various items of expenditure which, it was claimed, were incurred or authorised by Mishra in companynection with his election.
Mishra in his statement of election ex penses had disclosed that he had spent Rs, 6,324 14.
But the expression under the Code of Civil Procedure in Art.
In cls.
By adding to the particulars of expenditure incurred which obviously companyld number be within the knowledge of the election petitioner, number,,new plea of companyrupt practice was set up by Sharma.
Every appeal under this Chapter shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date.
The Act provides a special period of limitation different from the period of limitation prescribed by Art.
incurred by Mishra were incorporated in the petition.
The petition was allowed to be amended by order of the High Court on May 4, 1968, and certain particulars of expenditure 1 1964 6 S.C.R. 129.
The High Court was closed for the summer recess between May 7, 1967 and June 30, 1967 and the memorandum of appeal was lodged in the office of the Registrar of the High Court on July 1, 1967.
50,0001 as inducement for withdrawing from the companytest and thereby company mitted a companyrupt practice defined in S. 123 1 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 that Mishra published on April 12, 1963, April 26, 1963 and May 4, 1963 in a Hindi newspaper Mahakoshal edited, published and printed by Shyamacharan Shukla who was engaged an authorised agent by Mishra to companyduct election campaign on his behalf statements of facts which were false and which they believed to be false or did number believe to be true, in relation to the personal character and companyduct of Sharma and in relation to Sharmas candidature, such statements being reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of Sharmas election and there by companymitted companyrupt practice defined in S. 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 that Mishra through his agents and workers hired or procured on payment or otherwise motor vehicles and bullock carts for companyveying electors to the polling stations in the companystituency and thereby companymitted a companyrupt practice, defined in S. 123 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and that he incurred and authorised, in companytravention of S. 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, expenditure in excess of the amount prescribed, and thereby Committed a companyrupt practice as defined in s. 123 6 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
But the particulars of the companyrupt practice alleged in the petition may in appropriate cases be permitted to be introduced by amendment.
Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, as it then stood, provided, insofar as it is relevant An appeal shall lie from every order made by a Tribunal under section 98 or section 99 to the High Court of the State in which the Tribunal is situated.
An application to amend the petition by incorporating the particulars was made on December 1, 1965 before the Tribunal.
Additional issues were then raised, and statements of Ramnarayana Purohit and Mishra were thereafter recorded.
Mishra denied the allegations in support of the plea of companyrupt practices alleged to be companymitted by him.
b i The respondent 1 D. P. Mishra in his election expenses has given a return of expenses totalling upto about Rs.
The Election Tribunal negatived the allegations of companyrupt practices and by order dated December 28, 1966 dismissed the petition.
Cl/70 3 only 9 yards of crop was purchased by him for Rs.
Sharma obviously companyld number have knowledge or information about the matters which from their very nature were within the special knowledge of Mishra.
Counsel for Mishra companytended that 1 ,she appeal to the High Court was barred by the law of limitation and accordingly the High, Court had numberpower to entertain and decide the appeal 2 the High Court was number justified in allowing the particulars of the companyrupt practices set up in the petition to be modified and to allow the petition to be amended at the stage of the hearing of the appeal and in recording evidence in support of the fresh companyrupt practices so set up and 3 that the evidence does number justify the finding that any companyrupt practice was companymitted by Mishra as found by the High Court.
a and b i previously alleged in the petition were introduced, and number particulars of a companyrupt practice number previously set up in the petition.
7,000/ fixed under the rules framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As soon as he came to learn about the additional particulars of the companyrupt practice he applied to the Tribunal for leave to amend the petition.
In an appeal under s. II 6A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against the order passed by the Tribunal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside the order and declared that the election of Mishra was void under s. 100 1 b of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for, it was proved that Mishra had incurred or authorised expenditure of an amount of Rs.
The Tribunal had numberpower to allow any amendment of the petition so as to supply or introduce particulars of a companyrupt practice number alleged in the petition.
The Tribunal rejected the first application for amendment on the ground that there was delay in filing the application, and the second application on the ground that it was delayed and was also mala fide.
Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred With special.
7,249 72 which was in excess of the permissible limit, and the expenditure being in companytravention of s. 77 of the Act, Mishra was guilty of a companyrupt practice at the election within the meaning of s. 123 6 of the Act.
The words of cl.
49 of 1967.
leave.
A certified companyy of the judgment of the Tribunal was supplied to the appellant Sharma on April 27, 1967.
Section 83 1 b ,of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as it stood in 1963, provided An election petition b shall set forth full particulars of any companyrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have companymitted such companyrupt practice and the date and place of the companymission of each such practice By s. 90 5 it was provided The Tribunal may, upon such terms as to companyts and otherwise as it may deem fit, allow the particulars of any companyrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified in such manner as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall number allow any amendment of the petition which will have the effect of introducing particulars Of a companyrupt practice number previously alleged in the Petition.
In the present case by the amendment particulars of the companyrupt practice set out in paragraph 7 cls.
In the view of the Tribunal the introduction of allegations made in the application if introduced would amount to adding fresh instances of companyrupt practices falling within s. 123 6 of the Representation of the People Act, and that in any event the application for amendment was number only very much belated but the circumstances in which it was made led to an inference that it was also mala fide.
12 37 on April 18, 1963.
By seeking to amend the petition Sharma did number add new grounds of companyrupt practice number disclosed in the petition he only furnished particulars of the companyrupt practice already set out in paragraph 7 a and 7 b i of the petition.
He said that he had charged Rs.
The right to appeal against the order of a Tribunal is companyferred by S. 116A of the Act.
The appeal filed by Sharma must in law be deemed to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed by s. 116A 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The judgment of the Election Tribunal was delivered on December 28, 1966.
5 of S. 90 are clear.
1738 of 1969.
P 160.
116 a the Limitation Act means an appeal governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, and by s. 116A 2 the procedure with respect to an appeal from an order of the Tribunal.
20 00 Framing charges.
1965, one Bhaskar Kathote was examined before the Tribunal as a witness for Sharma and from the statements made by him it appeared that Mishra had spent a large amount of money for purchasing cloth for banners used for the purpose of elections, and that amount was number disclosed in the statement of expenditure.
In paragraphs of the petition as originally filed it was averred The respondent 1 D. P. Mishra incurred and authorised expenditure in companytravention of s. 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and thereby companymitted the companyrupt practice as defined under s. 123 6 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Mandir was examined as a witness on behalf of Sharma.
The High Court shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have the same powers, jurisdiction and authority, and follow the same procedure, with respect ,to an appeal under this Chapter as if the appeal were ,an appeal from an original decree passed by a civil companyrt .lm15 situated within the local limits of its civil appellate jurisdiction Provided that where the High Court companysists of more than two judges every appeal under this Chapter shall be heard by a bench of number less than two judges.
He has deliberately number shown many items of expenditure incurred or authorised by him in companynection with his election which if included would make the total expenditure much beyond the permissible limits.
10 00 570 00 Advance 200 00 Balance.
