Judgment

HEGDE

( 1 ) THESE appeals by special leave arise from the election petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of the election of respondent No. 1 (who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent) to the Lok Sabha, from Ram, Bareilly constituency, in the General Election to the Lok Sahaba held in March, 1971.

( 2 ) AFTER the pleadings of the parties were completed and the issues framed, the appellant applied to the Court under Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code for leave to deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the respondent. The respondent object to the same on the ground that the provisions of Order XI, Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied to election petitions. In her objection-statement, the respondent reserved her right to object to the interrogatories sought to be served at a later stage. The application filed by the appellant for leave to serve interrogatories on the respondent was heard by Broome J. The learned Judge by his order dated 14/09/1971 overruled the objections of the respondent and directed as follows:

"accordingly I allow the application A-29 and grant leave to the petitioner to deliver the accompanying interrogatories for the examination of respondent No. 1. The affidavit in reply shall be filed by 4-10-1971. "

( 3 ) THE respondent appealed against that order to this Court after obtaining special leave. That appeal was withdrawn during the course of the hearing.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of that appeal, the respondent filed an application before the High Court under Rule 7, Order XI, Code of Civil Procedure praying that the interrogatories served on her may be set aside as they were unreasonable, vexatious, oppressive, unnecessary and irrelevant. " As many as 31 interrogatories had been served on the respondent. All these interrogatories object to each one of them. At the hearing of that petition, it appears it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the allegations in the election petition did not afford any basis for Issues 1 to 3. Consequently the interrogatories served were irrelevant as well as unnecessary. The entire argument before the trial Judge proceeded on the basis that the facts stated in the petition did not disclose the corrupt practices which were the subject-matter of Issues 1 to 3. The learned Judge accepted that contention and set aside some of the interrogatories served on the respondent. Proceeding further, he struck out Issues 1 to 3. Thereafter the appellant applied to that Court for amendment of Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the election petition by giving better particulars. The learned Judge rejected that application on the sole ground that by the amendment in question, the appellant was seeking to add to material facts and hence they cannot be accepted after the period of limitation for filing the election petition. Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1972 is directed against the Order setting aside the interrogatories served and the striking out of Issues 1 to 3 and Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1972 arises from the order rejecting the application seeking permission to amend the election petition.

( 5 ) ISSUE No. 2 had not been pressed before the trial Court nor was it pressed before us. Therefore we need not consider whether that issue should be restored. Issue No. 3 is largely consequential to Issue No. 2 though a portion of that issue bears on issue No. 1. Hence at present we are only concerned with Issue No. 1 and that portion of the third issue which has a bearing on Issue No. 1. Both those aspects will be covered if issue No. 1 is recast thus :

"whether respondent No. 1 obtained and procured that assistance of Yashpal Kapur in furtherance of the prospects of her election while he was still a Gazetted Officer in the service of Government of India. If so from what date ?"

( 6 ) WE can now leave out of consideration issue No. 3.

( 7 ) THE main question to be decided in these appeals is whether the allegations made in the election Petition can be