( 1 ) RAM Abhilakh Tewari has filed this petition under Article 228 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Election Tribunal, Gonda, dated 28-10-1957, 28-11-1957 and 6-12-1957 passed during the trial of an election petition. The present petitioner Ram Abhilakh Tewari was declared as the returned candidate on 18-3-1957. Opposite-party No. 2 Naurang Singh presented an election, petition to the Election Commission on 1-5-1957-The Commission referred the petition for trial to the Election Tribunal at Gonda fixing 15-7-1957 as the date for parties, to appear before the Tribunal. Certain proceedings were taken by the Tribunal on the election petition and then on 8-10-57 an application, for amendment of the election petition was presented by opposite-party No. 2 who was the election petitioner. By this amendment application the pleadings in paragraph 4 (D) of the petition were sought to be amended. On this amendment applications arguments were heard on 21-10-1957 and then by the order dated 28-10-1957 the amended application was allowed. This is one of the orders impugned in the present petition.

( 2 ) OBJECTION had also been taken before the Tribunal that the pleadings in paragraphs 4 (A) to 4 (G) of the petition were general and vague and not in accordance with the requirements of law. These objections were heard on 20th and 21st November, 1957, and then by the order of 28-11-1957, it was held that the pleadings, were proper and correct except that a few defects existed in some of the paragraphs which needed to be rectified. For that purpose, the Tribunal granted time to opposite-party No. 2 to put in an application, for amendment by 2-12-1957. This is the second order that is impugned in this petition.

( 3 ) THE third order that is impugned in this petition is the order of 6-12-1957 which was passed on the amendment application presented by opposite party No. 2 in pursuance of the order of 28-11-1957. By this order of 6-12-1957 that amendment application was allowed.

( 4 ) DURING the hearing, of this petition by us, we were further informed that, after the above impugned orders had been passed the Election Tribunal had proceeded further with the trial and on 13-12-1957 framed a number of issues. A certified copy of the issues framed was filed before us. We allowed that copy to be filed as we considered that an examination of the issues framed would be useful for the purpose of deciding the petition inasmuch as the decision would depend to a certain extent on the question as to how far the allegations in the various paragraphs have been made the subject matter of the issues by the Tribunal.

( 5 ) WHEN this petition was taken up by us for hearing, a preliminary circumstance was brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, viz. that opposite party No. 3 Sardar Sheo mangal Singh Kapoor had not been served with the notice of the petition so that the hearing of the petition required to be adjourned. Learned counsel for opposite-party No. 2, however, urged that the nature of this petition was such that the presence of opposite party No. 3 was not necessary and requested that the petition may be heard without insisting on the notice being served on opposite party No. 3. In the circumstances, we examined the petition and came to the view that the petition could be heard in the absence of opposite party No. 3. Though in the petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Election Tribunal in respect of all the paragraphs 4 (A) to 4 (G), it appears to us that he is realiy concerned with only paragraphs 4 (A) to 4 (D ). The allegations in paragrapns 4 (E), 4 (F) and 4 (G) do not concern, the petitioner. They relate to other persons who were respondents in the election petition and who are opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 in this petition. These two opposite parties have not come up to this Court, have not challenged the orders of the election Tribun