( 1 ) I. A. NO. I was filed by the unsuccessful election petitioner Sri R. Dayanandasagar, praying that permission may be granted to him to add two paragraphs as Nos. (j) and (k) to para 14 of his Petition. The successful candidate Respondent No. 1 Sri Vatal Nagaraj filed his objections. The petitioner filed his reply statement (which is referred to also as 'rejoinder' or 'replication' in judicial pronouncements) to the Written Statement of the first respondent, and the latter filed his objections to its being entertained as part of the pleadings.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed I. A. No. I under Order VI Rule 17 read with s. 151 CPC. (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). He subsequently filed i. A. No. II praying that I. A. No. I may be treated as one under S. 86 (5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. Orders were passed on 25-7-1972 on I. A. No. II that I. A. No. I will be heard on merits as an application filed only under S. 86 (5) of the Act.

( 3 ) THE two matters being somewhat inter-related, arguments were heard together on I. A. No. I and the question of entertaining the reply statement of the petitioner as part of the pleadings, and they stand disposed of by this common order.

( 4 ) A few particulars material at this stage are The petitioner and respondents 1 to 9 were the contesting candidates in the Election held in march 1972 to the Mysore Legislative Assembly from the Chamarajapet assembly Constituency in Bangalore City. The poll took place on 5-3-72. The Returning Officer on 11-3-1972 declared the first respondent as the returned candidate, he having secured 15,456 votes, and his closest rival the petitioner having secured 14,512 votes. The petitioner filed the Election petition on 24-4-1972. The first respondent filed his written statement on 20-6-72. On that date, Sri V. K. Govindarajulu,petitioner's learned Advocate, sought time to file his reply statement. He was directed to file it on the next adjourned date viz. , 26-6-1972. On 20-6-1972 itself, Sri K. A. Swamy, first respondent's learned Advocate, represented that he may be permitted to file his objections to the entertaining of the reply statement of the petitioner as part of the pleadings; and permission was granted. The petitioner filed his reply statement on 26-6-1972. The last of the written statements viz. , those of respondents 3, 4 and 6, were filed on 3-7-1972. On that date, the first repondent filed his objections regarding the reply statement of the petitioner. The petitioner filed I. A. No. II also on that date.

( 5 ) THE petitioner assails the election of the first respondent almost wholly on ground of corrupt practices under Cls. (1), (2), (3), (3a), (4), and (6) of S. 123 of the Act. Under Cl. (6) of S. 123 the incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of S. 77 is a corrupt practice for the purposes of the Act. S. 77 deals with the account of election expenses to be maintained. The maximum expenses permissible are Rs. 10000. In paragraph 14 of the petition, the petitioner, under the head (d) the last head being (i) alleges that the first respondent has incurred or authorised expenditure of at least Rs. 2,500 for advertisements in the local press, and has suppressed that expenditure in his return of the Election Expenses (to be submitted as per S. 78 of the Act ). He has specified eleven such advertisements. In his amendment application I. A. No. I he seeks to add two more, detailed as below, as items (j) and (k) to paragraph 14 of his petition. "14 (j ). The 1st respondent and|or his election agent andjor his agents with the knowledge of the 1st respondent and or his election agent printed 20,000 copies of the newspaper 'karmeekavani' dt. 28-2- 1972 at the press in No. 316/h, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40 edited by t. S. Ramadas for distribution on eve of his election and paid-a sum of Rs. 500 only towards the cost of printing and also incurred a sum of rs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document