Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.V.N.SASTRY
C.Maniyamma - Appellant
Versus
Junior Civil Judge, Narayanapet, Dist.Mahaboobnagar - Respondent
Decided On : 07-27-98
Election – Disqualification - Double voting – Election petition – Amendment of petition - application was resisted by the returned candidate on the ground that the petitioner cannot be permitted to plead new facts introducing a new cause of action after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the election petition. It was also contended that on an earlier occasion when an application was filed by the contesting respondent seeking better particulars the said application was opposed by the election petitioner on the ground that all the material particulars were already given in the election petition and there was no need to give any further particulars and accordingly that application was dismissed – Held, while Section 86 of the Act itself makes the CPC applicable, as nearly as may be, to the trial of the election petition, it must not; however, be ignored that some of the Rules framed under the Act itself over-ride certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and thus, the general power of amendment drawn from the Code of Civil Procedure must be construed in the light of the provisions of the election law and applied with such restraints as are inherent in an election petition. On the facts of the said case the Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have allowed, the amendment sought for. Since the amendment petition was filed after the evidence was led by the parties apparently to bring the evidence inconformity with the pleadings. The Supreme Court also noticed that the evidence adduced by the election petitioners was beyond the pleadings and the amendment was sought with a view of cure the said defect. The Supreme Court, however, did not directly deal with the question which arises in the present case - In A. K. Gupta s case (supra) the Supreme Court held that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts merely to a different or additional approach to the same facts the amendment is to be allowed even after expiry of the statutory period of limitation. It was held in the said judgment that the expression cause of action in this context does not mean every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed. The expression only means a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. The words new case means new set of ideas. Likewise in Nineet Kumar s case (supra) the Supreme Court held that it is well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute an addition of a new cause of action, or raise a new case, but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on the record, the amendment would be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation - Proposed amendment in the instant case does not introduce any new cause of action, but merely seeks to supply some more instances of the same corrupt practices which were already pleaded originally in the election petition - Writ Petition dismissed
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against an order allowing an application for amendment of the Election Petition. The election Petition was filed questioning the election of the returned candidate mainly on the three grounds: 1. Some votes were polled in his favour in the name of some dead persons; 2. Some votes were polled in the names of some persons who were absentees and who ceased to be residents of the village concerned; 3. Double voting in more than one constituency by the same persons.
( 2 ) ORIGINALLY in the election petition the names of some persons who voted under those three categories were mentioned. The trial of the election petition commenced in February, 1996. After about 50 witnesses were already examined the instant application for amendment was filed seeking to introduce by way of amendment the names of some more persons who allegedly voted under those three categories- The application was resisted by the returned candidate on the ground that the petitioner cannot be permitted to plead new facts introducing a new cause of action after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the election petition. It was also contended that on an earlier occasion when an application was filed by the contesting respondent seeking better particulars the said application was opposed by the election petitioner on the ground that all the material particulars were already given in the election petition and there was no need to give any further particulars and accordingly that application was dismissed. In view of the stand taken by the election petitioner at that time he is now precluded from pleading any further facts by way of the proposed amendment.
( 3 ) THE lower Court, however, allowed the application for amendment observing that the power of amendment is wide enough to permit the amendment sought for and that the proposed amendment does not introduce any new cause of action as the petitioner seeks only to add some more, instances of the same corrupt practices, which were already pleaded in the election petition.
( 4 ) SRI B. Prakash Rao learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has contended that the lower Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction in permitting the amendment and that it has totally misdirected itself in holding that the proposed amendment does not introduce any new cause of action. He also contended that while under the general law the Court has a wide discretion in the matter of allowing amendment of pleadings, however, in the case of election petitions which are governed by special statutes, the powers of amendment are necessarily restricted and circumscribed by the provisions of the statute and a party is not entitled to seek an amendment which introduces a new cause of action after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in the statute. In support of his contentions the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance mainly on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajanan Krishnaji Bapt and another v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe and others, AIR 1995 SC 2284.
( 5 ) ON the other hand, Sri K. Mahipathi Rao learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent has contended that the lower Court has properly exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment and there are absolutely no grounds whatsoever warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He also contended that the proposed amendment does not introduce any new cause of action whatsoever, but merely gives some more instances of the same corrupt practices which were already pleaded in the election petition and there is no bar for allowing such amendments. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has cited the following Judgments. P. C. Purushotama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608, Balwan Singh v. Prakash Chand and others, AIR 1976 SC 1187, A. K. Gupta and Sons
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
