The court has the discretion to refuse leave to withdraw an election petition if the application is not made bona fide and is an attempt to escape the consequences of default.

Harbans Singh, J.

1. Election Petition No. 9 of 1967 was filed on 6.04.1967, by Jugal Kishore an elector, challenging the election of Dr. Baldev Parkash from the Amritsar East Constituency to the Punjab Legislative Assembly on the ground that the nomination papers of two other candidates namely Shri Harcharan Singh and Shri Gurdeep Singh were improperly rejected by the reluming officer on the date of scrutiny. Issues were settled on 5th of May. 1967. Arguments were heard and preliminary issue decided on 8th of May, 1967, and the case was adjourned to 22nd of May, 1967 to enable the parties to file lists of witnesses On that date, an application was made by the petitioner that he would examine thirteen witnesses, out of which he wanted some, including the returning officer, to be summoned and offered to bring the others with him The respondent wanted to examine six witnesses. The case was adjourned to 8th of August 1967, for the evidence of the petitioner; 9.08.1967. for the evidence of the respondent and 10.08.1967, for arguments. Diet-money, process-fee etc. for the witnesses, who were required to be summoned, was directed to be deposited within the time prescribed in the rules, which is three days from the date of the order of the Court. Thus the diet-money and the process-fee for the witnesses, required to be summoned by the parties, was to be deposited on 26th of August. 1967 giving three clear days to the parties. The petitioner failed to put in either process-fee or diet-money On 8.08.1967 when the case was taken up for recording the evidence on behalf of the petitioner, his counsel stated that no witnesses were present He further stated that the petitioner had met him about ten days after the date of the order of the Court directing the witnesses to be summoned and ascertained from him the amount of diet-money etc. he was required to deposit Thereafter he did not turn up till about twenty days before the date fixed for recording the evidence and the petitioner told him that his father had been taken seriously ill and that for that reason he could not come earlier or arrange to deposit the diet-money etc The counsel informed him that that was no stage for making an application for deposit of diet-money and that he should arrange to bring the witnesses himself Thereafter the petitioner met him only that morning stating that his father died on 25.07.1967 and that the Kirya ceremony was to take place on 9.08.1967.

The counsel for the petitioner stated that in view of the changed circumstances the petitioner proposed to withdraw the election petition and prayed for a short adjournment to enable him to make such an application The application was filed after lunch wherein it was stated that after 22nd of May. 1967 his father fell seriously it and on that account he could not deposit the diet-money; that he came to the High Court after the close of the summer vacation ascertained the amount and went back to Amritsar to arrange for money, but his father was ill and he could not come. That the petitioner being the youngest son has now to bear the entire burden of looking after his mother and unmarried sisters and was not in a position effectively to prosecute this petition and incur any further expenses and, therefore, wished to withdraw the main petition. As required by Section 109 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the same was directed to be published in the official gazette and the case was adjourned till today for the decision of the leave application which was opposed.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that he being the sole petitioner his application to withdraw the petition must be granted as a matter of course unless the case fell under Sub-section (2) of section 110, namely, where the application for withdrawal has been induced by any bargain or consideration for which there was no suggestion) which, in the opinion of the High Court, ought not to be allowed. On the othe