LexRAJENDRA KUMAR BAJPAI versus RAM ADHAR YADAV & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ' .,. y • c • l., • D E F G H RAJENDRA KUMAR! BAJPAI v. RAM ADHAR YADAV & OTHERS August 6, 1975 255 [A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, V. R. KRISHNA IYER ;,ND S. M. FAZAL ALI, JJ.] ' Representation of the People Act, (43 of 1951), s. 87-Applicability of 0. XI. C.P.C. to trial of election petitions . An application for delivery of interrogatories is One of the logical steps in aid of the prosecution of an election petition and is fully covered by s. 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. ( 1) Order XI, C.P.C., forms Part of the trial of suits and is not a special pro~ cedure. Order X relates to the procedure for examination of parties by the Court and 0. XI, is a part of it, because, it provides for exam!nation through interroga· turies, when personal appearance is not possible. [262A~B] (2) Before Act 47 of 1966 ame.nded the Representation of the r'eople Act, 1951, the power to try election petitions was conferred on the Election Tribunal . "fhat Tribunal was not a Civil Court but was deemed to be a Civil Court, Though s. 90, as it then stood, provided that every election petition shall be tried, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure under tlle C.P.C., in order to avoid doubts, the special powers under 0. XI, C.P.C., were conferred on the Tribunal by s. 92. When Parliament has expressly conferred the powers con- ta'..ned in 0. XI on the Tribunal, it could not be contended that the principles contained therein are excluded from the trial of election petitions, on the basis of English Law. f257F-Hl (3) After the amendment of 1966, as election petitions are to be tried by the High Court, a Court of Record, s. 87, which is based on the repealed s. 90, is sJJffi~ cient to conta:.O the entire procedure to be adopted by the High Court in trying election petitions. Section 87 is of widest amplitude so as to cover the entire procedure mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure with only two exceptions, (a) when the Act contains express provis!.on for certain matters which are in~ consistent with the procedure prescribed by the Code; and (b) when a particula.r provision ·of the Code is either expressly or by necessary intendment excluded by the Act. That is why a provision like the repealed s. 92 is unnecessary; and it cannot be contended that sIDce Par1iament repealed that section, Parliament in- tended that the provisions of 0. XI, C.P.C., should not apply to election petitions tried by the Hil:h Court, f258A-E: 269C-Dl Sitaranz Hirachand Bir/a v. Yograisiligh Shankarsingh Parihar and others, AIR 1953 Born. 293, Durvodhan v. Sitaram and others AIR 1970 All. l; Jugal Kishore v. Dr, BaJdev Prakash AIR 1968 Punj, 152 (F.B.) and Keshari Lal Kavi and another v. Narain Prqkash and others, AIR 1969 Raj. 75, referred to. Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh and others A.l.R. 1966 S.C. 773, and V. K. Sakleha v. Jagjiwan [1972] I S.C.C. 826, followed. (4) Merely because in lnnmati Mallappa Basappa v. Desai Basavaraj Ayya· ppa and others [1959] S.C.R. 61 J it was held that the procedure contained in 0. 23, r. 1, C.P.C. does not apply to election petit!.ons it could not be contended that 0. XI, C.P.C., would not also be applicable to election petitions. Order 23 r. 1 cannot be equated with the provisions of 0. XI. Having regard to the natur~ of an election petition which is a matter of moment and concern to the entire constituency the notion of abandonment of the claim or withdrawal is absolutely foreign to the scope of such proceeding<; and must, therefore, be held to be ex~ duded by the necessary intendment of s. 87 itself. [260H-261 B, D-EJ 256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 1 s.c.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1975. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and o~der da~ the 12th December, 1974 of the Allahabad High Court m Apphcat10n Paper No. A-53 in Election Petition No. 30 of 1974. Yogeshwar Prasad and Rani Arora, for the appellant. K. C. Agarwala and K. M. L. Srivastava, for respondent no. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by fAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal by special '.eave involves an. imcr~ pretation of the scope and ambit of s. 87 ot the }\eprescntation .of the People Act, 1951, as .ami;nd'1 by. Act 47 o.f 1966. The short point that fails for deterrrunat10n m this appeal ~s as to whether or not the provisioni; of 0. XI of the Code of Civil Procedure can be · applied to the trial of elect
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.