YENDAPALLI SRINIVASULU REDDY versus VEMIREDDY PATTABHIRAMI REDDY & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 19-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
701
   [2022] 17 S.C.R. 701
701
YENDAPALLI SRINIVASULU REDDY
v.
VEMIREDDY PATTABHIRAMI REDDY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7951 of 2022)
OCTOBER 19, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Amendment to election
petition – Election petition filed by the respondent challenging the
election of returned candidate on the grounds of improper
acceptance of the nomination papers of returned candidate and
improper receipt of invalid votes and improper rejection of valid
votes – A year later, the respondent filed the application to amend
the election petition to include certain averments – Application
allowed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Election petitioner-
respondent No.1 never took corrupt practice as a ground to
challenge the election of the returned candidate – Pleadings sought
to be taken by way of amendment so as to indicate that the
nomination form was not to be accepted for non-compliance of the
statutory requirements, cannot be said to be of introduction of any
new cause of action or new ground of challenge – It cannot be said
that the ground as sought to be pleaded does not have any foundation
in the petition as filed; or that pleading of such particulars would
change the character of the election petition – Thus, the High Court
rightly allowed the amendment application.
Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant and
others : (2014) 14 SCC 162 : [2014] 7 SCR 258;
Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and Others: (2015) 3
SCC 467 : [2015] 4 SCR 987; Dhartipakar Madan
Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi: 1987 (Supp) SCC 93 :
[1987] SCR 369 ; Sethi Roop v. Malti Thapar (Mrs.)
and Others:(1994) 2 SCC 579 : [1994] 1 SCR 1002 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 7 SCR 258;
referred to
Para 9
[2015] 4 SCR 987
referred to
Para 12
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
[1987] SCR 369
referred to
Para 12
[1994] 1 SCR 1002.
relied on
Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7951
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2019 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in I.A. No.02 of 2018 in E.P. No.01
of 2017.
P. Vishwanath Setty, Sr. Adv., G. N. Reddy, Hemal Kiritkumar
Sheth, Advs. for the Appellant.
Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Abhijit Basu, Ms. Tatini Basu, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. We have heard Mr. P. Vishwanath Setty, learned senior counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, learned counsel for the
respondents finally at this stage itself.
3. By way of this appeal, the appellant- returned candidate, whose
election has been called into question by the respondent No. 1 by way of
Election Petition No. 1 of 2017 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
seeks to question the order dated 06.12.2019 whereby, an application
for amendment of the petition has been granted.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant aspects to be noticed
for the purpose of this appeal are that in the election petition filed by the
respondent No.1 herein, essentially two broad grounds have been urged.
One being of improper acceptance of the nomination of the returned
candidate, i.e., the appellant herein, and the second being of improper
receipt of invalid votes and improper rejection of valid votes.
5. The second ground as referred hereinabove is not of relevance
for the purpose of the present appeal. The relevant part of the matter
herein is that in the petition as filed, the appellant has, inter alia, prayed
for the following relief:
“B. Declare the acceptance of the nomination paper filed by the
1st Respondent/the Returned candidate with substantial defects
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
703
in the affidavit as illegal, improper and consequently set aside/
reject the same.”
6. In relation to the aforementioned relief, the election petitioner
(respondent No.1) has stated that the nomination paper of the appellant
ought to have been rejected for being not accompanied by a proper
affidavit, particularly when the verification part was not carrying the
signature of the appellant. The other submissions are that the affidavit
was drawn up on certain stamp papers but, one of them was not purchased
in the name of the appellant and was purchased by some other person
and then, the name of the appellant was inserted by erasing the name of
the original purchaser. It had also been submitted that there had been
certain blank spaces for which, the affidavit was rendered nugatory 

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