Back
2004(6) Supreme 203
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, G.P. Mathur & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar -Appellant
versus
Ramaratan Bapu & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8413-15 of 2003
Result : Appeal allowed.
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V.A. Mohta, Sr. Advocate, S.V. Deshpande, Advocate.
Held : It is no doubt true that all material facts have to be set out in an election petition. If material facts are not stated in a plaint or a petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone as the case would be covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code. The question, however, is as to whether the petitioner had set out material facts in the election petition. The expression "material facts" has neither been defined in the Act nor in the Code. It may be stated that the material facts are those facts upon which a party relies for his claim or defence. In other words, material facts are facts upon which the plaintiff s cause of action or defendant s defence depends. What particulars could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. It is, however, absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish existence of cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleading of the party. But, it is equally well settled that there is distinction between "material facts" and "particulars". Material facts are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action or defence. Particulars, on the other hand, are details in support of material facts pleaded by the party. They amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving finishing touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more informative. Particulars ensure conduct of fair trial and would not take the opposite party by surprise. (Paras 6 & 7)
What was done by application Exh. 32 by the election petitioner was to supply particulars in support of the facts stated and allegations made in the election petition. It, therefore, cannot be said that material facts have been set out for the first time in application Exh. 32 by the petitioner. Material facts as to the nature of corrupt practice had been set out by the petitioner in the election petition and what was done by him by instituting application Exh. 32 was to furnish particulars in support of the allegations leveled in the election petition. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of absence of setting out material facts in the election petition. (Para 8)
JUDGMENT
Thakker, J.-The present appeals have been filed by the appellant, returned candidate against the common order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in Civil Application Nos. 473 of 2000, 474 of 2000 and 2321 of 2000 in Election Petition No. 1 of 1999. By the said order, Civil Application Nos. 473 of 2000 and 474 of 2000 filed by the appellant herein were rejected by the Court and Civil Application No. 2321 of 2000 filed by the first respondent herein came to be allowed.
2. To appreciate the questions raised by the appellant before us, relevant facts may be stated:
The appellant before us contested an election from 148 Amgaon Legislative Constituency, Bhandara, Maharashtra. The first respondent also contested the election from the same Constituency. Whereas the appellant got elected, the first respondent lost the election. The later, therefore, filed an Election Petition No. 1 of 1999 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) for setting aside the election of the returned candidate inter alia on the ground of corrupt practices adopted by the returned candidate. It was alleged that the returned candidate had not submitted correct and true accounts, had spent unaccounted money, etc. It was also alleged that the returned candidate had violated various provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and the election was, therefore, liable to be set aside. The petition was instituted on 1st November, 1999. Notices were issued to the respondents pursuant to which they appeared. The first respondent - appellant herein filed a written statement denying the averments made in the election petition. He also filed two applications, Civil Application No. 473 (Exh. 23) under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) for rejection of Election Petition on the ground that it did not disclose cause of action and Civil Application No. 474 (Exh. 22) under Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code for striking out certain pleadings from the petition. Copies of both the applications were duly served upon the petitioner. The election petitioner replied both the applications, vide replies Exhibits 30 and 27 respectively. The election petitioner also filed an application being Civil Application No. 2321 of 2000 (Exh. 32) for granting permission to furnish material particulars of corrupt practices as alleged in the petition. The said application was instituted on 16th June, 2000. No copy of the said application was served upon the appellant herein.
3. The High Court, by a common order dated 15th February, 2003, impugned in the present appeal, dismissed the applications Exhibits 22 and 23 and allowed the application Exhibit 32. The said order is challenged by the appellant by approaching this Court.
4. It may be stated that in spite of service on all the respondents, none has entered appearance. We have, therefore, heard Mr. V.A. Mohta, learned senior advocate assisted by learned advocate Mr. S.V. Deshpande for the appellant. Mr. Mohta contended that the High Court has committed an error of law as well as of jurisdiction in rejecting the applications Exhibits 22 and 23 and in allowing application Exhibit 32. He also contended that the copy of application Exh. 32 filed by the election petitioner was never served upon the present appellant (returned candidate) and hence, he could not file reply contesting the application. The order, therefore, suffers from non-observance of principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside. It was also submitted that application Exh. 32 was time barred and no amendment could have been granted by the Court. Since "material facts" had not been stated in the election petition, the petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone and no amendment could have been allowed. The order passed by the High Court has thus caused serious prejudice to the appellant.
5
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
