( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 116a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended upto date. An election was held for the U. P. Legislative Assembly from the Bahraich north 269 Constituency. There were three candidates for election to the seat who are the three respondents in this appeal. Respondent No. 1 Syed Zargam Haidar alias Hijjan Mian was declared as the successful candidate. The actual polling took place on 25-2-1957 and the result of the election was declared on 2-3-1957. The appellant Madan Lal, who was a voter but had not stood as a candidate, filed his election petition before the election Commission on 16-4-1957, which was the last date of limitation prescribed for presentation of election petitions under the act. The Election Commission entrusted this petition for trial to the Election Tribunal at Gonda and fixed 12-6-1957, as the date for appearance of parties before the Tribunal.

( 2 ) THE election of respondent No. 1 was challenged by the appellant on the ground of corrupt practices which were enumerated in paras 4 (a) to 4 (e) of the petition. On 27-6-1957 the respondents filed their written statements. Bis-pondent No. 1, amongst other pleas, put forward the defence that all these paras 4 (a) to 4 (e) in which corrupt practices had been alleged were vague and were, therefore, liable to be struck off. pn 2-7-1957 permission was granted to the appellant to file a replication which was actually filed on 8-7-1957. On the same date, preliminary issues were framed, -- the main preliminary issue being whether the allegations contained in paras 4 (a) to 4 (e) were vague and liable to be struck off. July 20, 1957, was fixed for arguments on these issues but the hearing was adjourned to 27-7-1957. On that date, the appellant moved an appli-cation requesting the Election Tribunal to make an order directing him to furnish better and further particulars of the corrupt practices which had been alleged in paras 4 (a) to 4 (e) of the petition. That application was rejected the same day. On 29-7-1957, arguments were heard on the preliminary issues and thereafter the appellant presented an application requesting for a weeks time in order to file an application for amend-ment of these paragraphs. On 1-8-1957, before the preliminary issues could be decided, the appel-lant moved an application for amendment of these paragraphs of the petition. Objections to this application for amendment were presented by respondent No. 1 on 14-8-1957. Parties were-then heard on 26-8-1957 on the amendment application which was rejected by the election Tribu-nal. On 28-8-1957, the Tribunal heard the parties on the preliminary issues and held that all the paras 4 (a) to 4 (e) of the petition were liable to be struck off. The Tribunal, therefore, struck off those paragraphs. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the petition as it remained after these paragraphs had been deleted and came to the view that the petition disclosed no cause of action and there was, therefore, no question of taking further proceedings in the trial. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the petition and awarded costs against the appellant to respondent No. 1. The order striking off paragraphs 4 (a) to 4 (e) of the petition as well as the order dismissing the petition as one single composite order passed on 28-8-1957. It is against this order that the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court under Section 116a of the Representation of the people Act.

( 3 ) WHEN this appeal came up for hearing a preliminary objection was taken by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that this appeal was not maintainable as the order dated the 28th of August, 1957, was not an order under Section 98 or 99 of the Representation of the People Act and the right of appeal to this Court under Section 116a of the Act had been granted only against order passed under Section 98 or 99 of the Act. The contention of the learned Counsel was that by the order of t