JUDGMENT :

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard Mr. P. Vishwanath Setty, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, learned counsel for the respondents finally at this stage itself.

3. By way of this appeal, the appellant-returned candidate, whose election has been called into question by the respondent No. 1 by way of Election Petition No. 1 of 2017 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeks to question the order dated 06.12.2019 whereby, an application for amendment of the petition has been granted.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant aspects to be noticed for the purpose of this appeal are that in the election petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, essentially two broad grounds have been urged. One being of improper acceptance of the nomination of the returned candidate, i.e. the appellant herein, and the second being of improper receipt of invalid votes and improper rejection of valid votes.

5. The second ground as referred hereinabove is not of relevance for the purpose of the present appeal. The relevant part of the matter herein is that in the petition as filed, the appellant has, inter-alia, prayed for the following relief:

“(B) Declare the acceptance of the nomination paper filed by the 1st Respondent/the Returned candidate with substantial defects in the affidavit as illegal, improper and consequently set aside/reject the same.”

6. In relation to the aforementioned relief, the election petitioner (respondent No. 1) has stated that the nomination paper of the appellant ought to have been rejected for being not accompanied by a proper affidavit, particularly when the verification part was not carrying the signature of the appellant. The other submissions are that the affidavit was drawn up on certain stamp papers but, one of them was not purchased in the name of the appellant and was purchased by some other person and then, the name of the appellant was inserted by erasing the name of the original purchaser. It had also been submitted that there had been certain blank spaces for which, the affidavit was rendered nugatory and these being the defects of substantial nature, the nomination was required to be rejected.

7. It would be apposite to notice that the result of the election in question was declared on 21.03.2017 and the election petition under consideration was filed on 27.04.2017. Leaving aside other proceedings, the relevant aspect for the present appeal is that on 27.03.2018, the election petitioner (respondent No. 1) moved an application, being Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2018, seeking permission to amend the election petition, so as to incorporate the averments in the following terms:

“8.....(a) It is submitted that as per section 33(A)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a candidate shall furnish the information as to whether he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which charge has been framed by the court of competent Jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the returned candidate/1st respondent herein filed a false in Form-26 by not disclosing the criminal case pending against him in which he is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more and a charge has already been framed by the court of competent Jurisdiction as on the date filing his nomination. I respectfully submit that the petitioner has deliberately filed as a false affidavit in Form-26 by not disclosing the criminal case pending against him as the FIR in the said criminal case was filed on 3.10.2011 and the same has been registered as Crime No. 188/2011 on the file of the Gudur Rural Police Station, Nellore District. The petitioner has been arrayed as A3. The Court has taken cognizance of the same as C.C. No. 370/2012 and the charges were also framed as on the day of filing