BHIKAJI KESHAO JOSHI AND ANOTHER versus BRIJLAL NANDLAL BIYANI AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 02-05-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i955. 
Ml!!' a 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1955 J 
BHIKAJI KESHAO JOSHI AND ANOTHER 
"· 
BRIJLAL NANDLAL BIYANI AND OTHERS. 
[MuKHER.JEA C. J., 
VIVIAN 
BosE, 
]AGANNADHADAs, 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR and fAFER IMAM JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act (Act XLTII) 1951, proviso to Sec-
tion 85-Section 90( 4)-Reconsideration of question of limitation by 
Tribunal-Section 82-N01J-compliance 
with 
provisions-Omission 
to include a party in list of respondents-Defect whether fatal-Sec-
tion 83(1)-Code of Civil Procedure, Order 6, rules 15(2) and (3)-
Effect 
o,f-Section 83(2)-"Full Particulars"-Duties of Tribunal 
when particulars filed are vague-Serious allegations of corrupt prac-
tiees-Duty of Tribunal to inquire into. 
The appellants, two of the electors of the Akola Constituency of 
the Madhya 
Pradesh State Assembly, filed an Election 
Petition 
against Respondent No. I, the successful candidate in the election 
held on December 13, 1951, and the three 
other respondents who 
having been validly nominated went to the polls but were defeated. 
The Election Petition, under Section 80 of the Representation of the 
People Act of 1951, was admittedly time-barred by one day. 
The 
Election Commission condone-d the delay under the proviso to Sec-
tion 85 of the Act and cOnstituted a 
Tribunal for the trial of the 
petition. On pleadings of the parties, nine issues were framed by the 
Tribunal which are covered by the following questions: 
(1) Whether the election petition was presented by a properly 
authorised person. 
(2) Whether there was sufficient cause for presentation of the 
petition' one day ouf o_f time. 
( 3) Whether the petition was defective for non-joinder of cer-
tain parties as respondents. 
( 4) Whether the petition was defective for want of proper veri-
fication. 
(5) Whether the petition was defective for vagueness of the 
particulars relating to the corrupt practices set out in Schedule A 
thereto. 
The Tribunal found only the first of the above points in favour 
of- the petitioners by a majority. 
But in respect of the other four 
points, it held against the petitioners unanimously. 
As a result of 
the adverse findings on these four points, the petition was dismissed 
without any trial on the merits. 
It is against this dismissal that 
the appellants have now come up to this Court on obtaining special 
leave. 
When the delay in submitting an election petition is condoned 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
429 
by the Election Commi,Ssion in ·exc;rcise of its power under the pro-
viso to Section 
85 of the Representation of the People Act (Act 
XLIII of 1951 ), it is not open to the 
Election Tribunal, under Sec-
tion 90( 4) of the Act, to reconsider the question of limitation. Even 
if, according to the requirement of Section 82 of the 
Representation 
of the 
People 
Act, any of the necessary parties 
other than the 
returned candidate has not been impleaded, the petition is not liable 
to be dismissed in limine on that sole ground; but it is a matter to 
be taken into consideration at the appropriate stage with reference 
to the final result of the case. 
Section 83( 1) of the Act provides that an election petition has 
to be verified in the manner provided for verification of pleadings 
under the Code of Civil Procedure. Clauses (2) and '(3) of rule 15 in 
Order VI of the Code lay down the procedure for verification of 
pleadings. 
Apart from those cases where the date of the pleading 
and the verification may be relevant and important, it would be a 
wrong exercise of discretionary power to dismiss an application on 
the sole ground of the absence of the date of verification. 
In such 
a case the applicant should normally be called upon to remove the 
lacuna by adding a supplementary verification indicating the date of 
the original verification and the reason for the earlier omission. 
The requirement of "full particulars" of corrupt practices in 
Section 83(2) of the 
Act, is one that has got to be complied with, 
with sufficient fullness and clarification, so as to enable the opposite 
party to meet the allegations against him fairly, and so as to prevent 
the enquiry from being turned into a rambling and roving inquisi-
tion. 
The primary responsibility for furnishing full particulars of 
alleged currupt practices and for filing a petition in full compliance 
with Section 83(2) of the Act is that of the petitioners. If they fail to 
do so initially it is their duty and responsibility to remove t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.