Duli Chand v. A.Prem Raj Chandela

judgment? To be referred to the reporter or not? Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT: The facts of this case are similar to the facts of CM(M) No.1519/07 and the amendment sought is also in respect of the expenses incurred in inserting advertisement in 'Jan Manas Samachar Publication' and 'Shakti Times'. In viewof judgment in CM(M) No.1519/07, this petition • is also dismissed. August 12, 2008 SHIV NARAY HI R J. ak Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. * IN THE HGH COURT OF DELH AT NEW DELFU Date of Reserve: July 15, 2008 Date of Order: August 12, 200 ±CM(M) 1519/2007 %

12.082008 Sh, BaIbr Tyag ... Petftoer Through: Ms. Ruchira V. Arora, Adv. Versus Smt, A. Dhanwati Chand&a .Respoideits Through: Mr. Pankaj Kapoor with Mr. Vikram.Kapoor, & Ms. Pooja Kohli, Advs. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHNGRA 11'

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the reporter or not? Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JILJDGMENT: By this petition, the petitioner has assailed legality df an ordr dared 4th October, 2007 whereby the Trial Court allowed an application under , Order 6 Rule 17 CPC made by , the • I respondent to amend the Election Petition. In Election Petition, respondent had stated that. the petitioner had not maintained true accounts of the election expenses He had not maintained vouchers and indulged into corrupt practices. In para 7(a), respondent had specifically stated that the petitioner did not give true accounts of election expenditure to the Election Commissioner while submitting the statement of expenses and spent amount more than what was CM(M) 1519/2007 r allowed by the rules. In para 7(b), he stated that the pet[tioner appointed polling agents including one Mr. Rajpal in polling station no. 107, ward no. 116 on the day of election and Mr. Rajpal was permanent employee of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner had circulated the names' of the pofling agents to the Returning Officer booth-wise. The petitioner, thus, indulged into mal-practices and corrupt practices.

¶3, The respondent sought amendment, of the Election "7etition so as to add para 7(c) stating that the petitioner with a view to allure the voters gbt a full page advertisement pubhshed in 'Jan Manas Weekly Publication' dated 18241h March,' 2007, 25- • 31' March, 2007 and 16th April, 2007 and paid a sum of Rs.24,000/- for each publication. The publication ' of • advertisement was made at the behest of petitioner who under her own signatures had given instructions to the Editor of jan Manas Samachar Publication. These expenses incUrred at publication and advertisement by the petitioner had not been 'i shown in the statement of expenses incurred on the election. r

¶4The respondent also was alJowed to introduce para 7(d) wherein he stated that the petitioner had appointed Mr Rohtash Singh s/o Ram Saran as his polling agent at polling booth in polling station no. 108 on election day, i.e., 5th April, 2007 and at that point of time he was permanent employee of DTC, CM(M) 1519/2007 I H and allowed the same. The Election Petition at that time was still at the stage of pleadings and issueshad not been framed.

. The petitioner has challenged the order stating :hat the order was contrary to law laid down by this Court in 60 (1995) LT 491 Krishna Tirath vs; Kalka Dass & Ors. The respondent has sought to widen the scope of the Election Petition by viay of amendment which was not permissible. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope.

of amendment of an Election Petition in AIR 1991 SC 157 F.A. Sapa vs Sin gora & Ors and observed that the Court has power to allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified provided the amepdment ' does not, have the effect of widening the scope of the EIec'ion Petition by introducing particulars in regard to a corrupt practice not previously alleged or pleaded within the period of limitatioi in the Election Petition. Thus, the Supreme Court laid down that the amendment or amplification must relate to particulars of' a corrupt practice already pleaded and must not be an effor'L: to expand the scOpe of 'inquiry by introducing particulars regarding CM(Mj 1519/2007 I,. 7/ Naraina Depot. I, H: F

¶5The Trial Court considered that th6 amendments sought by the respondent were necessary for the purpose of

L determining the real question of controversy between the parties t , .. a different corrupt practice not earlier pleaded.

¶8This Court in Krishna Tirath vs.. Kalka Dass & Ors. had reiterated the law in following words: "The law on amendment of election petitions is well settled and need not be reiterated except by making reference to one decision of the Supreme Court in F.A. Sapa etc.. v. Sin gora and Others etc. AIR 1991 SC 1557. It has been held that High Court is empowered to allow the particulars of any corrupt practice, alleged in the

: petition to the amended or modified under Section 86(5) of the Representation of the People Act, provided the amendment dOes not have the effect of widening the scope of the election petition by introducing particulars in regard to a corrupt practice not previously alleged or pleaded within the period of limitation in the election petition. In other words, the amendment or amplification must relate to particulars of the corrupt practice already 1' pleaded and must not be an effort to expand the scope of the inquiry by introducing particulars regarding a different corrupt practice not earlier pleaded. Only the particulars of that corrupt practice of which the germ exist in the election petition can be amended or amplified and there H can be no question of introducing a new corrupt practice. It has further been held that Section 86(5) of the Act permits particulars of any AIN corrupt practice, alleged in the petition, to be amended or amplified and not the material facts. The decision further clarifies on the powers of the Court in allowing the amendment within the ambit aforementioned saying that where the amendment sought for falls within the purview of Sub-section (5) of Section 86, the High Court should be liberal in allowing the same unless, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds it unjust and prejudicial to the . . opposite party to allow the same. Such prejudice must, however, be distinguished from mere . inconvenience." /2 CMUVD 1519/2007 : . 4+'4-.,r------ ' -'-.._n._, •________ -- - It is apparent from perusal of the Election Petition and 'the amendment sought by the respondent that by introducing para 7(c), respondent simply wanted to amplify a corrupt practice already alleged by him that the petitioner had not given correct particulars of the expenses incurred by him on election n his report. Para 7(d) was an amplification' of para 7(b). The respondent had specifically alleged that the petitioner had employed polling agents who were permanent employees of 'Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Although, in para 7(b) he gave • ., i •• •• name of only one polling agent but subsequently he dlsco\!ered •another polling agent who was emloyee of DTC. It is apprent that both the corrupt practices, the detailed particulars. of which had been given by the respondent by way of amendment, were already pleaded and no effort was made to introduce a new . ' • H. corrupt practice so as to widen the scope of Election Petition. '1O I find no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court The •S' I! - petition is hereby dismissed IG Aust 12. 2008 SHW NI A 4 RY `Y_ A I IGR • •,: . . • ••.• .. • . • CM(EfV') 1519/2007 • I • . . •,

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: July 15, 2008 Date of Order: August 12, 2008 +CM(M) 1490/2007 % 12.08.2008 DuIi Chand .... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anurag KumarAggarwal & Mr. Umesh Mishra, Advs. I Versus A. Prem Raj Chandela ...Respondents p Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advs. i-a JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the