The appellant sought to establish before the High Court that the spare companyies were submitted on April 24, 1972, by relying upon the endorsement of Shri Mittal, objections removed, R. S. Mittal Ext PW 5/1 below the order of the Deputy Registrar of April 24, 1972, which we have already set out.
On April 28, 1972, Shri Mittal informed the Deputy Registrar over the phone that he was indisposed and requested for time till the next day which was given.
appears that, although he was feverish, he actually came to the Election Office on April 28, 1972, in companynection with Election case No.
The first respondent was, therefore, declared elected on March 13,1972.
From the Judgement and Order dated the 22nd December 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Election Petition No.
It is also admitted that the limitation for filing the election petition was up to April 27, 1972.
PW 511 and describes the endorsement as a suspicious entry.
In face of the order of the Deputy Registrar of 24th April, Shri Mittals responsibility as companynsel was greater than he seemed to have thought.
Advocate for petitioner.
It may be necessary to briefly numbere the sequence of events for the purpose of appreciating the companytroversy raised between the parties as numbered earlier, the election petition was presented personally by Mr. Mittal without the spare companyies on April 18, 1972, and the Deputy Registrar had ordered it to be put up on April 24, 1972, for scrutiny according to the rules of the High Court.
Sd D. Khanna 28 4 72 .
Sd D. Khanna 29 4 72.
According to the appellant the spare companyies were filed with the Superintendent of the Election Branch in the afternoon of April 24, 1972, well within the period of limitation.
The records of that case were also called for in the High Court and were also shown to us here.
Let it be refixed on 28 4 72, after the defects had been removed as agreed to by the companynsel.
GOSWAMI, J. This appeal under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 briefly the Act, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Election Petition No.
The respondents companynsel, however, submitted that he should be examined as a companyrt witness and the companyrt ordered for his examination on that very day observing that in the interest of justice that the Superintendent of the Election Branch who was the only other official working between the Deputy Registrar Judicial on the one side and P.W. 3 on the other, should also be examined to clarify the matters so far as possible.
In the general election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly held on March 11, 1972, the appellant and the four respondents were the companytesting candidates for the Safidon Assembly Constituency No.
To establish his case, the appellant examined himself as PW 6, the Election Assistant, Shri O. P. Popli PW 3 , Deputy Registrar, Shri D. D. Khanna PW 4 , Shri R. S. Mittal, Advocate PW 5 , Shri Adish Chand Jain, Advocate PW 7 , Shri Jai Singh Dhillon, Advocate PW 9 and Shri Jaswant Rai, Advocate PW 10 .
The matter ultimately came up for hearing before the learned single Judge to whom this election petition was assigned.
The same was ordered to be put up for scrutiny on April 24, 1972.
was delivered by Goswami, J. S. N. Dwivedi, J. gave a separate Opinion.
The High Court has observed that it is companymon case of both side that by the time the case was placed before the Deputy Registrar on April 29, 1972, the spare companyies of the petition had been filed by the petitioner and the other defects had also been removed.
Shri Mittal is an Advocate practicing in the High Court.
Although, however, Shri Mittal was companyscious that the papers had to be filed within time to save the defective petition from being dismissed, curiously enough, he did number take the necessary care to get any official endorsement in the order sheet by the Deputy Registrar or even by the Superintendent of the Election Branch to the effect that the documents were filed and defects were removed on that day, namely, on 24th April, 1972, numberwithstanding the further fact that he had earlier at 11.00 A.M. on the same day requested the Deputy Registrar for time to remove the defects and the next date was fixed on April 28, 1972.
This point, was also sought to be supported by examining two other Advocates appearing on behalf of the defendant in that suit, namely, Adish Chand Jain PW 7 and Jaswant Rai PW 10 .
PW 3, who had initially scrutinised the petition and found the defects, was on leave on April, 24, 1972, and the Superintendent CW 1 was only present.
The petition was scrutinised and as the defects pointed out on the previous date have been removed, it is number prima facie in order.
Put up tomorrow, the 29th April, 1972 for orders.
Counsel may be informed.
Although the appellant summoned Shri Harsukh Rai Hantroo, Superintendent of the Election Branch, and was present in companyrt on 20th July, 1972, when the first four witnesses were also examined, Shri Mittal, who was companyducting the case on behalf of the appellant, made a statement before the companyrt that he gave up Shri Harsukh Rai Hantroo as unnecessary.
According to Shri Mittal, he.
Since Shri Mittal asserted in his evidence that he along with the appellant filed the spare companyies of the petition in the afternoon of April, 24, 1972, the respondent by examining the Subordinate Judge RW 1 sought to establish that the appellant as advocate actually appeared in his companyrt at Jind on April, 24, 1972, in a companytested civil suit Kati Ram v. Ram Tirath, etc.
The respondent, therefore attaches great significance on the omission of the date in Ext.
Before the High Court both sides examined witnesses.
and removed certain defects in that case on that day, namely 28th April, 1972 although that case was set down for April, 29, 1972, which date had been fixed by the Deputy Registrar in his presence on April 24, 1972.
The Judgment of P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY and P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.
The companynting disclosed that the first respondent obtained 19570 votes as against 19462 votes secured by the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
30 two candidates having already withdrawn from the companytest.
Issue numberice for scrutiny of service for 22nd May, 1972, and for settlement of issues for 26th May, 1972.
When the petition came up for scrutiny before the Deputy Registrar on April 24, 1972, Mr. Mittal appeared and requested for time to remove the defects pointed out by the office.
it is strenuously submitted by the respondent that the papers were number submitted on April 24, 1972, as alleged.
3 of 1972 Sagar Ram v. Banarsi Das Ors.
PW 5/1 of Shri Mittal are with the same pen and ink as is even admitted by Shri Mittal.
It was further held by the High Court that the said defect companyld number be cured subsequently even within the period of limitation prescribed for filing the election petition.
Several preliminary objections were taken by the sole companytesting first respondent.
Hardyal Hardy, V. P. Chaudhry, Jitendra Sharma and Sharma Chaudhury and Rathi, for the appellant.
D. Khanna 24 4 72 The next order passed by the Deputy Registrar on April 29, 1972, runs as follows Shri R. S. Mittal has informed me on the phone that he is indisposed and as such the case may number be taken up for scrutiny to day.
The facts may be briefly stated.
422 of 1967 on behalf of the plaintiff where the defendent was cross examined by him.
It is pointed out that the endorsement in that case with date and the endorsement in Ext.
All the Advocates except Shri Mittal were from Jind.
2 of 1972.
419 of 1973.
2 of 1972 dismissing it on the preliminary ground that the appellant had failed to companyply with the mandatory requirement of section 81 3 of the Act inasmuch as the requisite number of spare companyies of the petition for the respondents were number filed along With the petition in the High Court.
went to the Election Office along with the appellant and his Clerk, Manphool Sharma, and filed these papers at 2 00 P M. on April 24,1972, and made also the above endorsement Ext.
The High Court further held that the spare companyies were actually filed beyond the period of limitation.
The companynting of votes took place on March 12, 1972 and on the following day.
Again, from Shri Mittals evidence it.
He has requested time to remove the defects pointed out by the office.
N. Phadke, Bakhtawar Singh, D. N. Misra, and J. B. Dadachanji, for respondent No.
The election petition was presented by Mr. S. Mittal, Advocate incharge, to the Deputy Registrar Judicial of the High Court on April 18, 1972.
The final order of scrutiny passed by the Deputy Registrar on April 29, 1972, is in the following terms Present Shri R. S. Mittal.,
Civil Suit No.
The appellant filed an election petition in the High Court challenging the election of the first respondent on several grounds of companyrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 of the Act.
It is number necessary for the purpose of this case even to detail these.
The petition was filed on 18 4 72 and the result in this case was declared on 13 3 72 hence it is within time.
There is an endorsement in that case by Shri Mittal, this time, with date 28h April, 1972, below the order of the Deputy Registrar dated April 24, 1972, to the effect objections removed.
On this particular aspect of the matter, the Deputy Registrar was silent in his evidence and although it was Shri Mittal again who personally examined the Deputy Registrar in companyrt, he never put this question to him with regard to his informing him over the phone about removal of defects on 24th April.
The appellant denied this and stated that his junior, Shri Jai Singh Dhillon PW 9 actually companyducted the case on that day.
The respondent examined himself and R. W. Ch.
He deposed that he had even informed the Deputy Registrar that scrutiny companyld be made in his absence since the defects had already been removed.
It is admitted that the application was filed on April 18, 1972, without the requisite spare companyies and was, therefore, incomplete on the date of presentation.
PW 511.
There is numberdate given by Shri Mittal when her made his endorsement in the order sheet of the Registry.
