H.D. REVANNA versus G. PUTTASWAMY AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 21-01-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. SRINIVASAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
H.D. REV ANNA 
+-.. 
v. 
G. PUTTASWAMY AND ORS. 
JANUARY 21, 1999 
B 
(M. SRINIVASAN AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.) 
·,, 
-I 
Election Law : 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 : Sections 81, 82, 83, 86 and 
c 
117. 
Election petition---Affidavit-fn support'of-Defects in-Maintainability 
of-'-Effect on--Held: Although neither the verification of the election petition 
nor the supporting affidavit is in the prescribed f onn and the petitioner had 
not specifically set out as to which allegations were trne to his personal 
D knowledge and which ones are stated 011 i11f onnatio11, yet the electio11 petition 
is not liable to be dismissed in limine--Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, R. 
94-A and Fonn 25-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 0.6, R. 16 and 0.7, R. 
>-
11. 
Electio11 petition-Verification of-Affidavit-fn support of-Defects 
E in-Maintainability of-'-Effect on--Held : Defect in verification of election 
petition or the affidavit accompanying it is curable and not f atal-Karnataka 
High Court Rules, 1959, O.XI, R.4. 
Election petitio1t-Corrupt practices-Contents of-Vagueness ill-'-Elec-
F 
ti on petition co11tai11ed necessary facts constituting the cause of action for 
invalidating the election and the corrupt practices committed by the retumed 
,,.._
candidate had been substantially pleaded--Held: High Court rightly held that 
~ 
even· in respect of one of the corrupt practices material facts and full par-
ticulars are not stated, still the election petition cannot be dismissed in limine 
if ill respect of other corrupt practice, the material facts a11d particulars have 
G been given in accordance with the requirement of S. 83(1}-Election peti-
tion--Material facts" and material "particulars''-Distinction between--Held 
: "Material facts" should be fully set out and if any fact is not set out no 
._,-
evidence relating thereto will be pennitted to be adduced-Nor can the petition 
be amended after expiry of pe1iod of limitation prescribed for an election 
petition-As regards want of ''particulars" Court should afford opportu11ity to 
H include the same. 
198 
,_ 
..... 
~ 
Jl 
-~-
H.D. REV ANNA v. G. PUTIASWAMY 
199 
Election petition-Maintainability of-Preliminary objection A 
against-Held : Test to decide preliminary objection is whether any of the 
reliefs prayed for can be granted if the avem1ents in the petition are proved to 
be tme-lf yes, the petition is maintainable. 
Section 97-Recrimination petitio1t-Filing of-By retumed can- · 
didate--Held : Does not mean that the retumed candidate admitted the 
B 
allegations made in the election petition. 
Election petitio~ecount-Order of-Justification-Held : Has to be 
decided at the trial after evidence is adduced in that regard. 
Words and Phrases: 
c 
''Material facts" and "Pa1ticulars"-Meaning of 
Respondent No. 1 was leading by four votes in an election to the State 
Legislative Assembly, when the Returning Officer ordered a recount as a 
result of which the appellant was declared elected. Respondent No. 1, D 
therefore, filed on election petition in the High Court for declaring the 
appellant's election to be void and declaring respondent No. 1 to be duly 
elected. Respondent No. 1 contended that recount was ordered without 
complying with Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and that the 
appellant had committed corrupt practices falling within the scope of Sec-
E 
tions lOO(l)(b) and lOO(l)(d) read with Sections 123(2), 123(7)(1) and 
123(8) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant filed a 
petition for recrimination and also filed applications for summary dismiss-
al of the election petition. The High Court dismissed the applications. 
Hence this appeal. 
F 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the verification in the 
election petition and the affidavit was not in conformity with Rule 94-A of 
the Rules or Form 25, that respondent No. 1 had not specifically set out 
which allegations were to his personal knowledge and which where stated on 
information, that the allegations of corrupt practices were vague and did G 
not contain material facts or particulars, and, therefore, the said defects 
had vitiated the entire election petition and rendered the same liable to be 
dismissed. 
On behalf of respondent No. 1 it was contended that the filing of 
recrimination petition by the appellant showed that he had admitted the H 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A truth of the allegations made in the election petit

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