MALIK, CJ.:-

This is a very simple matter.

2. An election petition was filed on 10-6-1952 and in that petition certain allegations were made in paragraph 7C the first portion of which alone need be quoted:

"That the respondents Nos.1 and 2 could in furtherance of their election enlist the support of certain government servants."

The rest of the paragraph deals with two incidents of 16th December and 27th December, 1951, with which we are not concerned.

3. On 27-2-1953, the petitioners filed an application for amendment in which the relevant prayer was as follows:

"Therefore the petitioners pray that under S.83 (3) he be allowed to amend the details of para.7C by adding the words village headman with their names and the fact that they worked and issued appeal and subsequently they became polling agents of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and for this the petitioners shall ever feel grateful."

This application was granted by an order dated 28-11-1953, by the majority, the advocate member and the Chairman agreeing to the amendment, while the third member was of the opinion that the amendment application should be rejected. The advocate member held that the amendment sought amounted to furnishing further particulars and such an amendment could be allowed under S.83(3), Representation of the People Act, 1951. In the alternative he held that even if the amendment went beyond furnishing other and further particulars, the application could be granted under O.6, R.17, Civil P.C. The Chairman did not express any definite opinion but held that the petition could be granted as it came either under one provision or the other. The third member, however, held that the petition could not be granted either under S.83(3) of the Act, as by it certain new grounds were being introduced, or under O.6, R.17, Civil P.C.

4. Certain previous proceedings were referred to at the Bar, though we do not see much relevancy or bearing of those proceedings. The election petition was filed on 10-6-1952 and one of the opposite parties to the petition was Balbhadra Singh who had stood for election but had lost. He filed a written statement in which he mentioned certain new facts for invalidating the election. They were that certain Government Officers had helped in the election of the returned candidate. When the petitioner came to file his replication on 16-1-1953, he borrowed the allegations from Balbhadra Singhs written statement and put them in the replication.

On 31-10-1953, the replication came up for consideration before the Tribunal and all the members were unanimously of the opinion that the replication must be confined to the allegations made in the written statement and new matter could not be introduced in it. An alternative argument that it amounted to furnishing better and further particulars was also rejected. On 13-11-1953, by a majority it was held that the opposite party No.10 could not in his written statement raise new grounds for unseating the returned candidate. It is not urged that either of the two orders debarred the Tribunal from considering the application dated 27-2-1953, and passing the order dated 28-11-1953.

5. What, however, is urged is that the Election Tribunal has no power to allow new grounds to be introduced in the election petition by way of an amendment under O.6, R.17, Civil P.C. and under S.83(3), of the Act the petitioner can only be allowed to amend the particulars or give such further and better particulars in regard to any matter referred to in the petition, as may be necessary in the opinion of the Tribunal for ensuring a fair and effectual trial of the petition.

Reference has also been made to a decision of this Court in - Audesh Pratap Singh v. Brij Narain, AIR 1954 All 245 (A), where an argument was advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal had allowed new allegations to be made after the period of limitation had expired so as to make it a new petition. It was held that the amendments permitted by