V.S. ACHUTHANANDHAN versus P.J. FRANCIS AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 99 · Decided: 22-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

V.S. ACHUTHANANDHAN 
v. 
P.J. FRANCIS AND ANR. 
MARCH 22, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., M. SRINIVASAN AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Election-Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 83 read 
with section 123-Disctinction of Material facts and material particulars-
Materialfacts are primary facts disclosing some cause of action-These facts 
have to be specifically pleaded and failure to do so will result in rejection C 
of the election petition-But defect in material particulars can be cured at 
a later stage by amendment and petition cannot be dismissed in limine on 
the ground of such defect-Appellant filed an election petition-High Court 
failed to draw distinction between material facts and material particulars 
and dismissed the petition for lack of material particulars regarding corrupt D 
prac!iCe$-Held, High Court not justified in rejecting the petition-Code of 
Civil Procedure, Order 7 Rule 11. 
Sections 83 and 94-Election petition alleging illegalities in counting 
of ballot. papers-Dismissed in limine on grounds of 'vagueness-Held, not 
justified without affording opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the E 
allegations. 
Words and Phrases: 
''Reasonable cause of acti9n ''-Meaning of 
''Election' '-Meaning of in the context of Representation of th~ People 
Act, 1951. 
F 
Appellant, a candidate in the legislative assembly election, l()st the 
election. He filed an election petition against respondent No. 1, the successful G 
candidate, on grounds of corrupt practices and illegalities in counting of 
ballot papers. The High Court found the allegations regarding corrupt 
practices vague in nature and it did not ~et forth full details and particulars 
of any corrupt practices. The petition was dismissed under sectjon 83 of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure. Hence this appeal. 
H 
99 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Material facts are primary facts disclosing some cause pf 
action and failure to plead such 'material facts' is fatal to the election 
petition and no amendment of the pleading is permissible to introduce such 
material facts after the time limit prescribed for filing the election petition. 
B But the absence of "mitterial particulars" can be cured at a later stage by 
an appropriate amendment and petition cannot be dismissed in limine on the 
ground that full particulars of the corrupt practice were not set out. 
(109-C; F-G) 
Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi & Anr., [1972] 3 SCC 850; 
C Ba/wan Singh v. Laksmi Narain and Ors., [1960) 3 SCR. 91; Samant N. 
Balkrishna and Anr. v. George Fernandez and Ors., [1969) 3 SCC 238; 
Virendra Kumar Saklecha v. Jagjiw'an and Ors., ['1972} l ·.SCC 826; Shri 
Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, (1977) 1 SCC. 51'1; F.A, Sapa and 
Ors. v. Singara and Ors., Gajan(m Krishnaji .Bapat and Anr. v .Dattaji 
D Raghobaji Meghe and Ors.; [1995] S SCC 347; L.R. Shivaramagowda 
etc. v. T.M Chandrashekar etc., [1998) 6 Scale 361 and Mohan Rawale v. 
Damodar Tatyaba@ Dadasheb & Ors., [1934) 2 SCC 392, relied on. 
E 
"The Present importance of Pleadings (1960) Current Legal Problems" 
by Jacob; Referred to. 
1.2. The High Court did not distinguish between the material facts and 
material particulars of allegations regarding corrupt practices as defined 
under section 123 of the Representation of People Act. (109-C-D] 
1.3 The High Court was not justified in rejecting the election petition 
F without affording the appellant opportunity. to place on record the 
circumstances justifying the recount as prayed for by him. It is true that on 
vague and ambiguous evidence no court can direct recount. But it is equally: 
true that the doors of justice cannot be shut for a person seeking recount 
without affording him an opportunity of proving the circumstances justifying 
G a recount. It is settled position of law that the court trying an election 
petition can direct inspection and recount of votes if the material facts and 
particulars are pleaded and proved for directing such recount in the interest 
of justice. [115-A-D] 
MR. Gopalkrishnan v. Thachady Prabhakaran and Ors., [1995] Supp. 
H 2 sec 101, relied on. 
V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. P.J. FRANCIS [SETHI, J.] 
101 
Bhabi v. Sheo Govind, [1976) 1 SCC 687 and Satyanarain Dudhani v. A 
Uday Kumar Singh [1993) suppl. 2 SCC 82, cited. 
2.1. A reasonable cause of action means a cause of action with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.