Mishra, J. - l. In this election petition, Respondent No.1 is the returned candidate. Respondents No.2 to 9 are the persons whose nomination papers for candidature at the election in question were declared valid. Respondent No. 10 is the Returning Officer and Respondent No.11 Raj Narain is a person who was not a candidate at the election in question.

2. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.11 have, inter-alia raised an objection to the effect that joinder of respondent No.11 constitutes contravention of section 82 of the Representation of People Act. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the basis of the aforesaid objection, issue No.3 has been, framed. It runs as under:-

(a) Whether the election petition suffers from the defect of misjoinder of parties on account of joinuer of Respondent No.11 ?

&

(b) Whether the aforesaid misjoinder is violative of the provision of section 82 of the Act? If so, its effect?

or

(c) Whether the name of Respondent No. 11 deserves to be struck off from the array of Respondents.

3. Arguments on the aforesaid issues were heard on 15.4.1968.

4. Shri J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 11 although argued that the petition does not contravene