SYED M.FAZAL ALI, J

(1) THIS appeal by special leave involves an interpretation of the scope and ambit of S. 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended by Act 47 of 1966. The short point that falls for determination in this appeal is as to whether or not the provisions of. Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure can be applied to the trial of election petitions in the High court by force of S. 87 of the said Act. For the purpose of brevity, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 shall be referred to as the Act of 1951 and the Representation of the People Act as amended by Act 47 of 1966 as the Act. The circumstances under which this appeal arises may be succinctly stated as follows.

(2) AN election for the U. P. Legislative Assembly for 275 Allahabad North Assembly constituency was held on 26/02/1974. In this election the appellant was a candidate put up by the Congress ruling party and her election was contested by the first respondent Ram Adhar Yadav who was set up by the Samyukta Socialistparty. The appellant was declared duly elected in the said election and the respondent no. 1 was defeated.

(3) THE respondent no. 1 filed an election petition being Election Petition No. 30 of 1974 in the High court of Allahabad sometime in April 1974 challenging the election of the appellant on various grounds. The appellant -filed a detailed written statement denying all the allegations made by the first respondent in his petition. The election petition was assigned to J. M. L. Sinha, J., who framed a number of issues on 4/10/1974. In October 1974 respondendent no. 1 filed an application being Paper No. A/53 under Order XI Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of leave to respondent no. 1 to deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the appellant and filed certain interrogatories along with his application. The appellant filed her objections being Paper No. A/54 to the said application contending, inter alia, that the procedure prescribed under Order XI relating to interrogatories was not applicable to the trial of election petitions in the High court and was not covered by S. 87 of the Act. The application filed by the first respondent and the objections of the appellant came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge who by his order dated 12/12/1974, held that the provisions of Order XI fully applied to the election petitions and accordingly rejected the objections filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(4) IT appears that under the Act of 1951 the power to try election petitions was conferred on the tribunal and S. 92 of that Act expressly conferred powers under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure on the tribunal. The relevant portions of S. 92 of the Act of 1951 may be extracted thus:

THE tribunal shall have the powers which are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (Act V of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters:

(A) discovery and inspection;

(G) issuing, commissions for the examination of witnesses, and may summon and examine suo motu any person whose evidence appears to it to be material; and shall be deemed to be a civil court within the meaning of S. 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898).

By the Amendment Act 47 of 1966 this S. was, however, deleted and S. 90 of the Act of 1951 was replaced by S. 87 of the Act which was the same as S. 90 of the Act of 1951.

(5) MR. Yogeshwar Prasad Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted two points before us. In the first .place he contended that the provisions regarding inspection and discovery and interrogatories as contained in Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure are not an integral part of the procedure in a civil suit but are special powers contained in the Code and cannot, therefore, be made applicable to election petitions which are proceedings of a special na