IMPORTANT POINT
Court cannot give a new cause of action by directing to furnish particulars, which are not already part of the election petition.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court, made on 11/ 12.2.1991 in Election Petition No. 13/90. It is not necessary to adumberate all the corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the appellant mentioned in the election petition filed by the respondents. It would appear that the appellant had filed an application to dismiss the election petition on a preliminary ground that the required particulars of corrupt practices are lacking in the election petition and, therefore, no cause of action has been furnished to proceed further in the election petition. That objection was overruled. Subsequently, a petition has been filed to dismiss the election petition itself. In the impugned order, the learned Judge while holding that "the particulars are lacking" has held that what is missing from the petition are "merely particulars" and held that under Section 86(5) of the Representation of People s Act, the Court has discretion to direct the party to furnish the particulars. Accordingly, he directed to furnish the particulars as mentioned in the operative part of the order which reads thus : .

"(I) In para 5 of the Petition in respect of each instance set out under sub-paras (a) to (e) the petitioner shall state whether the instances set out therein have been managed by Respondent No. 1, or his Election Agent or by supporters of Respondent No. 1 with the consent of Respondent No. 1. If it is alleged that it is done by supporters, Petitioner to state the names of the supporters and if the names are not available to state that the names are not available.

(2) In para 6(a) of the Petition, the names of the three persons who had come to cast bogus votes to be supplied. If such names are not available, Petitioner to state that the names are not available.

(3) In para 6(b) of the Petition, Mr. Chinoy had, during the course of his argument, clarified that it was not the case of the Petitioner that delible ink for marking fingers was used because it was so managed by Respondent No. 1 or his Election Agent or any of his supporters with the consent of the Petitioner or Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner to so state in the Schedule now to be given. Further the Petitioner must give the names of hirelings and goondas of Respondent No. 1, if available. If not available to so state. The Petitioner to also give the names of the Presiding and Polling Officers at the various Booths mentioned therein and who according to the Petitioner, have been favouring and/or openly supporting Respondent No. 1. The petitioner also to state whether the acts of Booth capturing was managed by Respondent No. 1 and/or/his Election Agent and/or supporters (whose names must be supplied if available) with the consent of Respondent No. 1 or his Election Agent;

(4) In para 6(c) of the petition in respect of each instances set out in sub-paras (i) to (v) the Petitioner to give the same particulars as those set out hereinabove in respect of para 6(b) viz. whether it is managed by Respondent No. 1 and/or his Election Agent and/ or supporters of Respondent No. 1 with the consent of the Respondent No. 1 or his Election Agents, the names of the parties (if available), including the name of the persons (a) who have cast bogus votes, (b) who prevented the Petitioner s Chief Election Agent at the point of revolver, (c) who removed Book No. 17 (d) who threatened the Petitioner Polling Agent with murder.

It being clarified that the Petitioner need not for the present give the names of marathi speaking persons who were not permitted to go to the Polling Stations. This as a possibility exists of these witnesses being approached.

(5) In respect of para 7 of the Petition, Mr. Chinoy has clarified that the Petitioner does not have and will not lead any positive evidence to show that the instances set out in this para have been managed or committed by Respondent No. 1 or his Section Agent and/or any supporter