Elections cannot be invalidated based on improper amendments that change the character of the petition, especially if they introduce time-barred claims, violating procedural norms.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Anupama Agnihotri, Ms. Arti Bali, Mr. Shivang Dwivedi, Mr. Saurabh Pathak and Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Anupam Mehrotra, Shri Balkeshwar Srivastava and Shri Rishi Raj Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh in Election Petition No.02 of 2023 whereby the election of the petitioner was set aside and contestant at Serial No.2 was declared to have been elected.

Present petition also challenges the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh whereby the amendment application was allowed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner of election petition namely Shri Anupam Mehrotra, Shri Balkeshwar Srivastava and Shri Rishi Raj Mishra appears for the respondents herein and make a statement that they do not want to file a counter affidavit and the present petition may be decided based upon the arguments advanced.

4. Present petition was heard at length.

5. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the petitioner contested the election of Chairman of Nagar Panchayat Konhdaur, Pargana and Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh held on 04.05.2023 and after the counting held on 13.05.2023, the petitioner was shown to have secured 2584 votes and declared elected. Opposite Party No.1 secured 1957 votes and thus, there was a difference of 627 votes. It is stated that Opposite Party No.1 filed an election petition being Election Petition No.2 of 2023. The said petition was filed on 29.05.2023 and is contained in Annexure – 3. It is stated that a written statement was filed by one another candidate on 12.01.2024, Opposite Party No.3 herein, and the petitioner also filed a written statement on 18.01.2024 (Annexure – 5)controverting the allegations as levelled in the election petition.

6. It is stated that after the written statement was filed, an amendment application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on 14.02.2024 (Annexure – 6) to which objections were also filed on 20.02.2024 (Annexure – 7). District Judge, Pratapgarh vide an order dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure – 8) allowed the amendment application and thereafter, an application was also filed by Opposite Party No.1 in reply to the written statement filed by the petitioner on 04.03.2024. It is pleaded in Para 13 that although, the amendment application was illegally allowed, the petitioner, however, could not challenge the said order as the trial was proceeding speedily. However, it is argued that the amendment application could not have been allowed as the effect of the said amendment was that the nature of the election petition was changed and an otherwise time barred plea was allowed. It is further pleaded that after the amendment application was allowed, documents were filed by Opposite Party No.1 on 18.04.2023 and 19.04.2023 and the Opposite Party No.1 examined himself as PW – 1 and one Shri Pawan Kumar as PW – 2. It is stated that the petitioner also examined himself as DW – 1 and one Shri Krishna Lal Soni as DW – 2.

7. It is stated that thereafter the District Judge while deciding the election petition framed as many as six issues, which are as under:

8. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on all the issues except Issue No.3, findings were returned in favour of the petitioner, however, the