SETHI ROOP LAL versus MRS. MALTI THAPAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 1002 · Decided: 15-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, M.K. MUKHERJEE

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SETHI ROOP 1:-AL 
v. 
MRS. MALTI THAPAR AND ORS. 
FEBRU~Yl5, 1994 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 86(5) and 87-Amend-
ment of Election Petition-Not relating to corrupt practice-To be considered 
in the light of S.87 and Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908: Order VI Rule 17-Amendment of 
petition-Election petition-General power of amendment-Subject to the 
Representation of the People Act and restricted by S.86 (5) thereof 
Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961: Rule 93 (1) clause (d)-Marked copy 
D of electoral rolls-Production in Cou~Whether could impair the secrecy of 
the voters. 
The appellant and the four respondents contested an Assembly 
election. Respondent No.1 won the election, while the appellant secured 
seven votes less than the returned candidate. Appellant filed an election 
E 
petition on various grounds. He alleged that 22 bogus votes were cast in 
favour of Respondent No. 1 and prayed for production of Ballot Paper 
Account and marked copies of el~toral rolls of certain polling booths. The 
Trial Court allowed the prayer for,.production of Ballot Paper Account, 
but rejected the prayer for production of marked electoral rolls. Thereafter 
F 
the appellant filed an application for amendment of the Election Petition, 
and the same was dism~ssed. Hence these appeals. 
Allowing these appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. Considering the limited purpose for which the marked 
G copy of the electoral roll is maintained. namely, to identify the elector, it 
cannot be said that production thereof would impair the secrecy of the 
voters. [1005-H] 
2. The appellant has averred in the Election .Petition that against 
dead voters, votes have been cast and in support of his contention he has 
H not only examined himself but also examined his polling agents of ~e 
1002 
SETHI ROOP LAL v. MALTITHAPAR(MRS.)[MUK.HERJEE,J.] 1003 
respective booths wherein, according to him, false votes have been cast. A 
Besides he has exhibited the electoral rolls which those polling agents 
maintained to ascertain the identity of the electors who had come to vote. 
The appellant has thus made out a prima facie case for production of the 
marked copy of the electoral roll of the five booths referred to in his 
application. (1006-A-C] 
B 
3. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which 
relates to amendment of pleadings will a f orti,ori apply to election petitions 
~ 
subject, however, .to the provisions of the Act and of any rules made 
thereunder. Under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code the Court has the power 
to allow parties to the proceedings . to alter or amend their pleadings in c 
such manner and on such terms as may be just and it provides that all 
such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of 
determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. But 
exercise of such general powers stands curtailed by Section 86(5) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, when amendment is sought for in D 
or 
respect of any e.Jection petition based on corrupt practice. Since Section 87 
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and, for that matter, Order 
VI Rule 17 of the Code • is subject to the provisions of the Act, which 
necessarily includes Section 86(5), the general power of restrictions im-
posed by the latter. But in the instant case, what the appellant sought to 
bring in his election petition, by way of amendment, did not relate to any E 
corrupt practice and, therefore, it had to be considered in the light of 
Section 87, and de hors Section 86 (5) of the Act. [1007-A-C] 
FA. Sappa v. Singore, (1991) 3 SCC 375, distinguished. 
4. The Trial Court should issue necessary directions for production F 
of the marked copy of the electoral rolls as prayed for by the appellant and 
also dispose of the amendment application on its merits. (1007-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 841-42 
of 1994. 
G 
... 
"" 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.11.92 & 28.5.93 of the Punjab 
~ 
& Haryana High Court in C.M.A. No. 47-E/92 & C.M. No. 2-E/93 in 
Election Petition No. 5 of 1992. 
R.L. Batta, H.K Puri and S.K Puri for the Appellant. 
H 
1004 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994} 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Kapil Sibai and Ashok Grover for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Special leave granted in both the petitions. 
B 
1. In the these two appeals orders dated November 2,

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