Holding

An election petition may be dismissed for default under Order IX or Order XVII of the CPC, and restoration under Order IX Rule 9 is available only to the original petitioner, not to a respondent.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined an election petition that had been dismissed for the petitioner's failure to appear and produce evidence, despite statutory mandates for disposal within six months. The petitioner sought to delete a specific prayer, and the High Court allowed the deletion and later permitted withdrawal of a recrimination petition, but the petition was ultimately dismissed for default. The appellant, a respondent, applied for restoration of the petition, arguing that omission of a prayer did not constitute withdrawal and that an election petition, being a matter of the whole constituency, could not be dismissed for default. The Court held that omission of a prayer is not withdrawal, that election petitions can be dismissed under Order IX or Order XVII of the CPC for default, and that restoration under Order IX Rule 9 is permissible only by the original election petitioner, not by a respondent. Consequently, the appeal for restoration was dismissed and the High Court's order upheld.

Issues considered

The effect of deleting a prayer from an election petition under the Representation of the People Act.
Whether an election petition can be dismissed for default of appearance or non‑prosecution.
Whether a respondent has locus standi to seek restoration of a dismissed election petition under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC.
Whether the provisions of Sections 109 and 110 of the Representation of the People Act on withdrawal apply to the present case.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order IX Rule 8, s. Order IX Rule 9, s. Order XVII
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 109, s. 110, s. 112, s. 116, s. 123, s. 81, s. 82, s. 86, s. 87, s. 97, s. 98, s. 99

Subjects

election petitiondefault dismissalrestorationCode of Civil ProcedureRepresentation of the People Actwithdrawalabatementconstituencystatutory procedure

Judgment

·,

.687

· DR. P. NALLA THAMPY THERA.· .,
A
. '·
. ._ _;-·
\ B.L. SHANKER & O'J'HERS

October 28, 1983

[P.N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA NATH SiJN AND
RANGANATH MISHRA, JJ.]

Representation ofthe People Act 1951 Sections 87 & 109 (1)

.
-~ . Election Petition-Trial of-Applicability of the provisions of the Code of .
Civil Procedure-When ariset.

. . Omission of a prayer from an election petition-Whether amounts to wlth-
drawai of an election petition . .

Petitioner falling to prosecute election petit fon-Whrther election peJition •
could be dismissed-Restoraiion of a dismisse_d el~ction petition-Whether coufd be
at the instance of an_y person <Jilter than the election petition. ·

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Orda IX Rule 9

Election Petition dismi~sed for default- Restoration of petition-Whether
E
permissible at instance of a person other than election petition:

Procedure

Election ·Petition-Trial of-Default of app1arance or non-proserntion
whether ran b.e treated on par with· withdrawal of abatement. F

I: · lnterpretatio:n ~! Statutes. .
Presumption that legislature takes notice of court decisions-Court not to
fill up lacu 11a in legislation.
' '
G
_Respondent No. 2 who was one of 28 candidates participating in an
· election to a Lok Subha seat was dClclared. elected. Orie of the contenders.,
(Respondent No I) filed an Election, Petition for setting aside the election of
Respondent No. 2, under section 10.0 (1) (b) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951, and declaring Respondent No. S of the Election Petition ·as the duly .,.H
.
elected candidate, and also for iln. order declaring Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4
as been quilty'of corrupt practices under sections 123. The retu.rned candidate
as also all othei: contesting cao!iidates . and 3 outsiders were. impleaded as
.,
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1984)· 1.s.c.R.

responde'iits. Respondent No: 29 of the Election Petition filed hls written .
·A statement as also a petition -of recrimination under section 97 against Respon-
.. dent No. 5. Respondent No. 19 in the E'ltction Petition (Appellant in. the
appeal) filed his written $tate~ent. . The Election .Petitioner (Respondent No. t ·
in the appeal) applied to the court for deleting prayer (c) in tlte election petition
regarding the declara,tion of Respondent No. S as the returned candidate, and
'-·\._
/
the court aUowcd the deletion. Later Respondent No. 29 filid a memorandum
for withdrawal of the prayer of recrimination against Respondent No. 5. After
B ·the court allowed withdrawal of tbe recrimination petition the appellant objec-
ted to the request. Written statement was filed on behalf of Respondent 'J'.!o. t;
issue~ were settled, ·documents dfrected to be filed and .the case adjourned for
trial. The election petitionei wanted an adjourm~cnt on ihe date the case was
postrd· for trial. Tlie court gave a last chance and fixed the trial peremptorily
having regard to the statutory mandate" under section 86. (7) requiring an
.c ele~io.n petition to be disposed of within 6 month~ from the date of
presentation. On t~e date when the case was fixed for trial the election petiti-
oner neither filed his list of witnesses nor list of documents and prayed for an
. , adjournment. The court -refused .the adjournment .and di~missed the Election
.Petition.
•
' On the same day. Respondent No. 19· made an applicaton pra ying for
D recall of the order of dismissal and also for permission to prosecute 'the election
petitio'n , submit his evidence, and that lie may be substituted to continue the
·procecdlngs·of the Election Petition. The original Respon.dent No. J objected
and contended that the application was not' maintainable and that Respondent
· No. 19.had no /'ocus standi to ask for restoration. It was further contended that
there w'as· ao provision for trnosposition when an el~ction petition .was dis-
E missed and Rcspoadwt No. 19 wbo could ha've flled ·an- independent Election
petition within the time · ;1dmi5sible ur.der ihe A~t, and not having do'ae so,
could not ask for transposition.

The High Court. r~jected the appHcation.

. Jn.the appeal to thi» Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant
F that : (l) the earlier order of the High Court by which. prayer <c) was allowed
· to be deleted. and the order b.y which Respondent No. 29 was a II owed to with-
draw his prayer for recrimination as against. original ResJlondent No. 5 were"in
the nature of partial withdrawal of'tbe election petition and the statutory pro-
vision for wjtbdrawal having not been followed, the 01der was a imility and
no· party would be entitled to rely on them; (2) an election petition once filed
·does not mean a .contest only between ti:e_parties t~cre to but continues for the
benefit of the whole constituency and cannot come to an end merely by with-
_drawal by the· petitioner or by his dea th or · by the death or withdrawal of
O ppposition of the respondent, but is liable to be continued by, any . person who
might have been a petitioner. An election petition cannot be dismissed for
default and when the ap.pellant applied for perrni5sion to· continue the case, ·the
H . High Court should have given the opportunity to con_!.inue the election petition;
arid (3) that the view taken in so~e ca~es b} this Court that.except in ·cases of
withdraw11l and aba1ement1 the special provision contained in th~ Act for.
,
•
"

P.N.T. THERA V. B.L. SHANKER 689

notifying to the constituency so that any other person may apply for being
allowed to continue the ~Iection petition, are,nOt ap~licable. A
Dismissing the appeal :
_;~
. I HELD : I (i) An election· petition is liable to be dismissed fqr 'default
in situations covered by Order IX or Order XVII of'the Code of Civil Proce-
dure and for its restoration an application Under Rule9, Order JX of.'the C0de
would be maintainable but such appliCation for restoratiOn can be filed_ only by
the elect_ion petitioner and not by any respondent. [705 Ei.Fj
,
Jn the instant' case, at the instance of the appellant t_he application for
restoration was not maintainable. , {708 BJ

(ii) Elections and election disputes are a n1atter of special nature and
c
though'.the right to franchise and right to ,office are invoIVed in an 'election
dispute, it is not a Jis at comn1on law nor all action in equity. Election disputes
are strict!Y statutory proce~ding:s. [694 H, 697 A]
,
N.P. Po11nuswan1i v. _R,cturnini Officer, Naniakkal Constituency & Ors.
11952] S.C;R.,218;·Jagan Nath v. Jasimnt Singh & Ors. [1954J s.c.&. 892 at 895; D
Charan Lal Sahu v. ·Nandkisl:ore Bhait & Ors. [1974] 1 S.C.R. 294 at 296; Jyoti
Basu & Ors. v. Debi Ghosal & Ors. [1982] 3 S.C.R. 318 at 326,327; Arnn ·Kumar
- j Bose v. Mohd .. ' Furkan ~nsari & Ors. [l.984} 1SCR118 referred to.'.

(iii) All election pctttion once filed does not remain a contesi only bet-
ween the parties thereto but becomes a dispute "in "which the whole ·constituency ,,
is interested. The Representati~n of People· Act nlakes. provisions to meet "'

-
'

certain eventualities in the course of trial of election petitions in Chapter IV of
Part VI. TWo si"tUation~ which'h.:ne been cove1eci by the statute are withdrawal'
and ab~temeht of eleciion.petiti9ns. Section~ 109 and 110 deal with withdraw<il
o(election petitions, and Sections 112 and 116 dear with the eventuaJity of
death and non-substitution ~eading tO abatement. Eveil i'n t·hc case of death
and non{substitution, the Court is re<iuirel;l to publish a notice, in the Official F
gazette. [698 C-598 E, 699 FJ · · ·

I •
- (iv) Sub·section (1 of s. 10~ providei that an· election petition ,can be
witl;drawn only by. leave of the High'Courf.. 9mitting a· prayer fr(.fm the eleC-
tion petition strictly would·not amount to withdrawal of the ele.ction petition.
[700 BJ.

In the instant case, p_raye·r (c) in the election petition was concCrned with
the declaration of Responden~ ··'No. 5 as duly e1ected fron1 the constituency •.
This reli~f was asked to_ be deleted. Ko objection wa~ raised to its·. deletion
and in due course the Court a1lowed'this_pr<0yer to.be omitted: In oppOSition
to the.claim made. in~this prayer~. recrirninatiOn was file.ci ·by one of the i-espon- H
ctents in the electiOn petition. But once prayef (c) was 'droppe·d, the relief.of"
' .
recriniination could no more s~and. [799 G·700 A} '
690 SUPREME COURT'REPORTS (1984) 1 s.c.R.

2 (i) Non-prosec;:ution or abandonme.nt is certainly not withdraw?!.
A Withdrawal is a positive and voluntary act'\vhile non-prosecution or abandon-
ment inay not necessarily be an act of volition. It may spring from neg1igence,
indifference, inactioD cir even incapacity or inability to prosecute., In the case
-of withdrawal steps are envisaged t-0 °be taken before .the Court in a(:cordance
with the prescribed procedure .. :In the case of n~n-prosecu:tion or abandon ..
ment,. the election petitioricr does not appear before the court and obtain any
orders. [701 H-702 A] • ' ·
.B
(ii) The Act is a self-contained statute strictly laying down its own proce-
dure and nothing can be read in it Which is -not there nor can its provisions be
enlarged or extended by analogy, The terms of sec. 87 clearly prescribe that if
·there by no provision in the ·Act to the contrary,. the_provisions o'f the Code of
~ivil ProCedure would apply and that would include Order IX Rule 8, Under
c whi~h ,an election petition would be Hable to be dismissed if the election ptti~
tioner does not app~ar to pro~ecute the election petition. [702 BJ

(iii) Di.smissal of an election petition for default of appearance of the
petitioner under the provisions of O~der IX or'Ordfr XVII of the Code w~uld
be .valid and Would not be open to challenge on the ground. that these ProvisiOils ·
do not apply. [704 D]
, D
Juga/ Kishore v. Dr. Baldev Parhash. AIR 1968 Punjab & Haryana 152
at 158-159; Duryodhan v. Sitaram & Ors. AIR 1970 All. I. approved.

Sundtir!al Manna/al v. Nandramdas Dwarkadas & Ors. A.LR. 1958 M;P.
260 Rajendra Ku111a~i Bajpai v. Ram Adliar Yadav & 01's. [19?6] ·1 S.C.R. 255 at
260; referred to.
E

F
(iv) Order IX. Rule 9 (and ·not Rule 13 relied upon by the appellant)
would be the relevant prOvision ·for restoration of an election petition, and it
can be invoked in an appropriate case by th.e election petitioner only and not
by a respondent. .[104 E} .' ·

Jn the instant case the election petitioner and not the . appellant could
have ask~d for the relief of restoration. {704 G]
-
3. The consensus of judicial opinion in this .Court has always· been· that
the ·law in regard to elections has tO be strictly .~pplied and to· ihe extent 1,_
Provision has no~ been made, t.he Code would be a~plicable. The Court had
occasion to point out that the Legislature had not thought it fit to make any
.G provision in the Act permitting interventiOn o'. an elector of the conStituency in
all contingencies of fa Hu.res of the election petition either due to the collusion
or fraud of tli.e original election petitiorler or otherwise. Tbe legislature. could _
have ren1oved the la.cuna by amending the Act, particularly when many amend~
metlts have beCn made. The ract that has· been done leaves an impression. that
·the ·court had not rnisrea4 the situation. It is not for the Court to fill up. any
H lacuna in the legislation. [7~7 B~C; F-G]
'·
Dhoom'Singh v. Prakash Chandra Sethi & Ors. [1975] 3 S.C.R. 595 at 599;
Sheodlian Sinch v. Monan Lal Ga11tam. (i909J 3 S.C.R 416 at 421. referred to.
•

!i.:-1,T. THERA v. B.L. siIANKER (Ranganath Misra, J.) 691
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal ·No. 2922 of
1981. A
.•

. Appeal by Special leave from the Judgmel\t and Order dated
· C the :prd June, 1981 of the Karnataka High Court in Misc. Petition
J No. I of 1981 in Election Petition No. 76 of 1978.
B'
Petitioner in person. ·

P.R. Mridul, H.R.- Bhardwaj, N. Nettar, G.S. Narayana,
S.N. Bhatt attd Hemani Sharma for the Rcs.pondent. -
...
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
. RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed
against the order dated June 2:i, 1981 passed by the Karnataka High
Court'in Miscella.neous No; 1/81 arising out of Election Petition No;
76 of 1978. ,D

On November 5, 1978, polling took place for electing a member
to the Lok Sa15ha from No. 20 Chikmaglur Constiiuency and the
result of the election was detlared on J\(ovember 8, 1978. Respondent
Nci. 2 was declared elected. In all 28 candidates had participated
E
in the election. One of the contenders for the seat filed Election
. Petition No. 76 of 1978. before the ·Karnataka High Court on
December 20, 1978 impleading the returned ·candidate as all other
contesting candidates and three outsiders asking for setting aside
the election of respond&nt 2 under s. IOO(l)(b) . of the Represent·
ation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act' for short), declaring Shri F
Virendra Patil, respondent 5 of the ckction petition, as the duly
)- • ~elected candidate from the constituency and for an order declaring
,respondents 2, 3 and 4 of the election· petition to have been guilty
).Of corrupt practices within the mea1iing of s. 123 of the Act. In view
of the reliefs claimed it became necessary to implead all the contest-
ing candidates as required under s. 82 of th.e Act. On March 26,
G
1979, respondent 29 of the election petition filed his written· state-
ment as also a petition of recrimin.ation within the meaning of s.,
~ _,(. 97 of the Act as against respondent 5 whom the election petitioner
wanted to be declared as the duly elected· candidate. On October H
4, 1979 the present appellant who was respondent 19 in the election
petition filed bis written statement. · The election petitioner whq is
respondent I in th.e appeal applied to the Court for deleting the
692 sUI'REMB COURT REPORTS (1984) 1 s.c.Ji.

prayer in regard .to the declaration of Shri Vircndra Patil as the
A returned candidate. On .November 16, 1979, the conrt allowed
the application and prayer (c) ·of the election· petition under
which the declaration of Shri .Virendra Patil as 'the returned can- '-
didate was asked for was deleted. The .order of the . High Co11rt°"-"
'shows !hat there was no opposition to the request for deletion. · '>--.
On November 23, 1979, a memorandum w·as filed for the deletion
B of respondents 5 to 31. On July 23, 1980, on his own prayer res-
pondent 2 of the election petition was deleted. Simultaneously·the
names of the two other outsiders to the election petition being
respondents 3 and _~ .. of the election petition were also deleted.
Respondent 29 filed a memorandum on August 1, 1980 for with-
c drawal of the prayer for recrimination as against Shri Virendra Patil.
This was a necess;uy sequel of the deletio·n of prayer (c) 'of the
election petition. On September 12, 1980 the High Court directed
that names of respondents 5 to 31 .excepting respondents 13 and 19
tci the election petition would. stand · dropped. Thus, in· all three
respondents were left in the election petition being original respon-
D dents 1, 13 and 19. .On September 30, 1980 the Court directed
withdrawal of the recrimination. petition· as against Shri Virendra
·Patil by allowing the memorandum dated Au5ust 1, 1980. The
present appellant had objected to the request for withdrawal of the
recriminatory petition. Separate orders, viz., the order dated.
E November 16, 1979 allowing deletion .of prayer (c) of the election.
p~tition, ·the order dated September 12, 1980 deleting all° the respon-

F
dents excepting respondents 1, 13 and 19 of the election petition
from the recora,· and the order dated September 30, 1980, premitt-
ing withdrawal of the recrimination petition, were all allowed to
becomC'iinal_in the. absence of any. challetlge. ·

Qn November 23, 1980 written statement was filed on behalf
-
'of original respondent 1 and issues were settled on January 5, 1981.
The Court indicated a trial schedule by requiring the documents to .
be filed on February 16, 1981 and recording of evidence was also4~
·directed to begin from the date and the trial was· to proceed day ·to ·
G
day. On Feburary 16, 1981, the election petit10ner wanted adjourn-
ment. The High Court was justified in . giving only one adjournment
as a last chance .and fixing the tri~l on March 9, 1981, in·view of the
statutory mandate ·that an election petition shall be disposed of as
H. far as practicable within six months from the date of presentation of ../
the ele~tion petition as required by s. 86 (7) of the Act. On March
9, 1981, the election petiti9ner again asked for adjournment. The
High· Court declined the. prayer for adjournment and said' : "On
P,N,T. THERA v; 1i.I.:. SHANKAR (iianganath Miiro, J,) 693
the previous· occasion, i.e. Feburary 16, 1981, it was posted for
commencement of evidence but n.either the petitioner nor his -wit- A
nesses. were. present. However, at the reque$t • of the petitoner's
counsel the matter was adjourned to today -as a last chance. The
list of witnesses. and list of documents· were also at the request of. the
petitioner's counsel_ p,ermitted to be filed .before February 2, 1981
with noiice to respondents. This has not been done. However,
when the matter was called today the petitioner is absent; none of
B
his witnesses is also present. Shri K. Cbannabasappa, learned
coup.sel for petitip~er wanted to file the list of documents and wit-
nesses today in. Court anci stated..that the matter may be adjourned
for trial to some other date. . . In view of the _circumstances that
petitioner is absent in·spite ·of the fact that this is the second date c
fixed ·for trial of the petition, I ha:-'e no option except to dismiss this .
petition for non-prosecution. 'This election 11etition is according~y
dismissed. . There are three co1itesting re,pondents. in this election
petition· viz., R-1, R·l3 and R-19• Respondent·] and R·l.3 are
represented by Shri G. V. Shanta Raju, and Sri Vyas Rao respecii- ·
~ely. R-19 wl10 appears in pers·on-is iwwever absent ... " · D

On the same day respondent :t 9 to the election petition made
an application praying for "recall of the order dated 9th March i98l
with reference to Eleciion Petition No. 76 .of 1978, and this respon·
dent 0 o. 19 .may plea~e be permitted to prosecute this election E
petition, .~nd to submit his -evidence, and this responden\ may please
. be permitted to be substituted and to ,continue the proceedings of
this election petition". Rcspontlent 19 amended this application and
asked for restoration of the election petition. The original respon-
dent l filed objection to the request for restoration contending t~at .
the application for restoration was not maintainable and that F
). respondent 19 had no locus standi to ask for restoration of the case.
There was no provision for tran.sposition when an election petition
.
was dismissed and, ·therefore, .respondent 19 who could have filed an·
• independent election petition within tlu; time admissible tinder the .
· Act could not ask f9r transposition. On June 23, 1981,. the High G
Court rejected the application after negativjng the stand of 'respon'
dent 19 that an election petition could not be dismissed for default
and that a case ofabanaoment should be treated. at par WJth abate-
ment and withdra~al of the election petition. On September 14, 1981,
a petition for special leave was filed and upon leave being granted,_
this appeal by respondent 19 bas come before us for final hearing.
' '
694 SUPREMB CQURT REPORTS (1984] l s.c.R.

At the hearing the appellant appeared in person. Respondent
A l who was the eleciion petitioner and respondent 3. who was
respondent 13 before the High Court did not appear. Thus the
appellant has been heard in person and respondent 2 has been heard
through counsel. ·

.. The appellant contended : (1) the earlier orders passed .by the
B High Court, namely, the order date<tNovember 16, 1979 by which
prayer (c) was allowed to be deleted and the order dated September
30, 1980 by which respondent 29 was allowed to. withdraw his prayer
for recrimination as against original respondent 5, are in the nature of
partial withdrwal of the election petition and the statutory provision
c for withdrawal having not been foliowed, it ·must 'be held that the
orders ·are a nullity and no party would be· entitled to rely on them. ·
The appellant is, therefore, free to contend that these orders must be
, ignored and the High Court should be called upon to comply with the ·
statutory provision relating to withdrawal of election· petition before
'such permission can be granted; (2) an election petition once filed .
D does not mean a contest only between the parties thereto. but conti-
nues for the benefit of the whole constituency' and cannot come to an
end merely by toe withdrawal thereof by the petitioner or even by his
death or by the death or withdrawal of opposition of the respondent
bu.t is liable to be continued by any person who might have been . a .
E petitioner. Therefore, an· election petition cannot be dismissed for.
default and when the appellant who was himself entitled to file an
election petition applied for· permission to continue the ·case, ·the
High Court should have given him the opportunity to continue the
election petion; (3) the view taken by this Court in some cases that
ex~ept in.cases of withdrawal and abatement, the special provisions
contained in the Act for notifying to the· constituency so that any ·
other person may apply for being allowed to continue the electiQn
petition, are not applicable.

Apart fron these contentions which we propose to examine, it
G is also necessary to consider whether the appellant, not being the
election petitioner, could ask for the restoration within the ambit of
Order IX, Rule 9 of the.Code ofCi11il Procedure ('Code' for shorti.
'
This Court has consistently taken the view ftiat elections and
H election pisputes are a matter of special nature and that though the
right to franchise and right to office are involved in an election
dispute, it is not a tis 'at common iaw nor au action in equity. As
•
'
P.N.t THERA v.. b.Li SHANKER (Ranganath Misra, J.) 695

early as 1952 when the first election under the Constit1ltion took
place, a Constituti<iln Bench of this Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. A
Returning Officer, Namakka/ Constituency & Ors., (1) observed :

"The right to vote or stand as a candidate for election
is not a civil right but is a creature of ·statute or special
law and must be subject to the limitations imposed . B
1
I by it."
¥
while dealing with an appeal in an elecion dispute arising out of the
first series of elections under the Constitution, Mahajan, C.J.,
speaking for a Constitution Bench of this Court stated in Jagan Nath
v. Jaswant Singh & Ors.(2 ):. C •
"The. general rule is well settled that the statutory
requirements of election law must be strictly observed and
that an election contest is not an · action at law or a ~uit
in equity but .is a purely statutory proceeding unknown
D
to the common law and the Court possesses .no common
law power. It is also well settled that it is a sound
principle of natural justice that the success of a candidate
•
who has won at an election should not be lightly inter-
fered with and any petition .seeking such ~interference
must $trictly conform to the requirements of the law.:·· E
In Charan Lal Sahu v. ·Nandkishore Bhatt & Ors.,(9) this Court
observed:

"The right conferred being a statutory right, the
terms of that statute had to be complied with. T~re. is . F
no question of any common law right to challenge an
• election, Any discretion to condone the dela~ in presen·
tation of (he petition or to .absolve the petitioner from
payment of security for costs can only be provided·
.f·' under the statl!te governing election disputes. If no G
discretion is conferred in respect of any of these ma(ters,
nqne can be exercised under any general.· law or on any
principle of equity. This Court has held that the right to

(1) [19521 S.C.R. 218.
• H
(2) [19541 S.C.R. 892 at 895.
(3) [1974) I S.C.R. 294 at 296.
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [! 9S4J 1 s.c.R..

vote or stand as a candidate for electfon Is ~ot a. civil
A .right but is a creature of statute or special law and must.
be subject to the limitations imposed by it."

In N.P. Ponnusw!"'li's case it was pointed. out that strictly speaking
it is the ·sole right of the Legislature ·to· examine and determine all
B • matters. relating to the election of its own members and if ·the
legislature takes it out of its own hands and vests in a special tribunal ·
·an entirely new and unknown juriSdiction, that special jurisdiction
should be exercised in accordance with the law which creates it. In
Jyoti Basu.& Ors. v. Debi Ghosa/ & Ors.,( 1) this Court said:
.c
"A right to elect, fundamental though it is to
democracy. is, anomalously enough, neither. a f~nda
rnental right nor a Common Law Right. It is pure and
. simple, a statutory right. So is the right to. be elected.
So is the right to dispute an election. · Outside of statute, ·
D there is no right to elect, no right t6 be elected and no
righrto. dispute an election. Statutory creations they are,
and therefore, · subject to statutory limitation. An
election.petition is not.an action at Common Law; nor .in
equity. It rs a statutory proceeding to which neithenhe
E common law nor the principles of equity apply but only
0

those rules w!Jich the statute makes and applies. It is a
special jurisdiction, and a special .jurisdiction has ~!ways
to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating
·: it. Concepts familiar' to Common Law and Equity
must remain strangers to Election· Law unless statutorily
F. embodied. A Court has no right to resort to .them on
consid~rations of alleged policy because policy in .such .
matters, as those, relating to the trial ·of election disputes,
·~'is.what the statute lays down. In the i;iai of election'
disputes, Court is put in a straight. jacket .. Thus the· -1
entire eiection process commencing from the issuance ,of
G
the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a
member or members right up .to .the final· resolution of
.the dispute, if any, concerning the Clection is regulated by·
the Representation of th~ People Act, . 1951, different .
H
•
stages. of the process · being dealt with by different
provisions of the Act." ·

(1) [1982] 3.S.C.R. 318 at 326-327.
''

.i'.N.T. TliERA v. IU. SHANKER (Ranganath Misra,/.) 697

~. That view has been endorsed in Arun Kumar· Bose v. Mohd. Furkan ·
' '
Ansari & Ors.,( 1) where two of us were parties to the decision. A

The legal.position is, therefore, well ~ettled that el~Ction disputes
__J~ are strictly statutory proceedings.· ·
I

Chapter VI in Part Ill of the Act makes provision for the trial
of election. petitions. Sub-section (1) of s. 87 provides:
•
Subject to the provisions of this Act and.of any rule.s
made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried.by
the High Court, as nearly as may be, in ac,cordance _with
the procedure applicable under the~ode of Civil Proce- c
dure, 1908 (5 ,pf 1908) to the trial of suits." · •

·The same section makes provision for- application of the Indian."
. Evidence Act to trial of election petitions, subject to the provisions
of the Act. Keeping in view the detailed provisions in the Act for •
the trial· of election petitions, a three Judge -Bench in Inamati
D
Mallappa_ . Basappa v. Desai Basavaraj Ayy~ppa & Ors.,( 2 ) indicated :

"The effect of all these provisions (which previously
were included in certain other sections .of the Act) really
is to constitute a self-contained Code governing the trial · • E
of election petitions." ·

· We have already found that an election petition is a strict
statutory proceeding. An appeal lies to this· Court under s. ll 6A of
·the Act both on questions of law and/!Jr fact from every order made
by the High Court under ss. 98 and 99 of the Act. No. other order
F
is open to appeal- urider the statute. When the. 'application of the
appellant -to resto,re the election petition was rejected, an application
under Art. 136 of the Constitution for grant of special leave was
made. In that the petitioner clearly prayed for leave against the order
·dated June 2), 1981. Leave _has, therefore, 'been granted to him to
appeal against the order of the High Court made ~n that day. The
earlier orders dated Noveinber · 16, 1979,- September 12, 1980, and
September 30, 1980; are not open to challenge. in this appeal and
Mr. Mridul for the respondent has rightly contended that these prders
'H
(I) (198411 S.C.R. !l8.
(2) (1959) S.C.R. 611 at 624. '
'

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1984] 1 s.c.il.

have. become final and cannot' be assailed at this stage unless they can
A be shown to be nullity. J'he appellant has taken the stand that an
election· dispute is not on,e between two sets of parties who are before
the.'Court; but it is a dispute concerning the entfre constituency. That
is the pronounced view of this Court. In Inamati Ma//appa Basoppa's
case this Court observed :
B
"Once this process has been set in motion (an ·
election petition has b~en filed (by the petitioner he has
released certain forces which even he himself would not
be able to recall and he would be bound to pursue ,the'
petition to its logical end ..... "
c
. . .
This observation goes to show that an election petition once filed
does not remain a contest only between the parties thereto but
becomes a dispute in which the whole constituency is interested. The.
Act makes provisions to meet certain eventualities in the course of
D the trial in Chapter IV of Part VI. Two situations which have been
covered by the statute are withdrawal and abatement of election
·petitions. Sections ,109 and 110 deal with withdrawal of election
petitions, and sections 112 and 116 deal with the eventuality of death
and non-substitution leading to abatement. Section 109 provides : .
E
"109. Withdrawal of election petitions - (1) An
election petition may be withdrawn only by leave of the
High Court; ,.
F (2) where an application for withdrawal is made
under sub-se~tion ( 1), notice there of fixing a date for the
hearing of the application shall be given to aUother ,;,_'
parties to the petition and shall be published. in .the
official Gazette."

Section· 110 reads thus :
, 1.
"110. Procedure for withdrawal of election petition, --",
(!)· If there are more petitioners than one, no application
H to withdraw an election petition shall be made except with
· the consent of all. the petitioners;

•
P.N.T. THERA v. B.L. SHANKER (Ranganath Misra, J.) 699

(2) No application for withdrawal shall be granted
if in the opinion of the High Court, such application has A
been· induced by any b.argain or consideration which
,.;- ought not to be allowed;
'

I (3) If the application is granted-
~ B
(a) x x x
(b) the High Court. shall direct that tlie notice of
withdrawal shall he published in the Official
Gazette and in such other manner as it may
specify and thereupon the notice shall be
c
published accordingly;

(c) a 'person who might himself have been a
.. Petitioner. may, within fourteen days of such
· publication, apply to be substituted 'as petitioner D
in place of the party withdrawing, and upon
compliance with the. conditions, if any, as to
, security, shall be entitled to be so. substituted
and to continue the.proceedings upon such terms
as the High Court may deem fit.
E
'
The question of abatement does not arise in this case. It is, .
therefore, sufficient to state without extracting the provisions of ss.
112 and 116 of the Act, that even in the .case of death and non-
substitution, the Court is required to publish the notice in the official
gazette. · F

Two questions become relevant at this stage : firstly, it has to
be decided whether the earlier' orders allowing prayer (cY to be
deleted and the relief o( recrimination to be omitted amounted to
withdrawal of the election petition within the meaning of ss .. 109
G
and 110 of the Act; and secondly, whether on that account the orders
) are a nullity. Pr~yer (cYin the election petition was concerned with·
the declaratio'n of respondent. 5, Shri Virendra Patil as duly elected
from the constituency in question. This relief was asked to be
deleted. No objection was raised to its deletion and in due course. the H
Court allowed this prayer to be omitted. In opposition to the Claim
made in this prayer. recriminatiOtl was filed by one of the respondents
in the election petition. But once prayer (c) was dropped, the relief
'.

700 SUPRBME COURT RBPORTS (1984] I s.c.R.

of recrimipation could no more stand. Consequently on the prayer·
A of the recriminator that relief was also allowed to be omitted. In
· view of the .contention of the appellant, ·it is necessary to decide
whether omission of prayer. (c) comes within the ambit of s. 109 of
the Act. Sub-section (l) of s. 109 provides that· an· election petition
can be withdrawn·only by.leave "of the High Court. _Omitting a prayer
B trom the electio~ petition strictly would not amount to withdrawal of
. the election petition. There :.vou!d be severa-1 instances where not·
.. wit_hstanding the deletion of one relief, the election petition as such
would continue.to be alive. In the cases which were cited before us
referring to the applicability of Order XXIII, rule I of the Code, this
aspect was examined with · reference to wiihdrawal of the election
C - petition. We do not. think that if one of the reliefs claimed in the
election petition is asked to' be omitted, it would come within t_hc
provisions of sub·s. (I) of s. 109 of the Act. There is no. reason why,
if even after omission of a particular relief the election .petition
survives and is available to be tried' in aecordance with· 1aw, that
·omission or deletion should be treated.as withdrawal of.the election
D ·· petiti.on: There may be cases where while asking for one definite relief
as the main one in a !is several other . reliefs are !"rayed for and after
the pleadings are closea instances are not rare when ·untenable and ··
unnecessary reliefs are asked to be omitted. Amendment to omit such ·
. a relief does not amount to -a pra~er for withdrawal of the !is itself.
E Jn this case the main. relief of the election petitioner· was setting aside
of the election of respondent 2. Along with it he had also claimed the
relie( that the original resp.ondent 5 be. declared to be duly elected.

Apart from the·fact that no objection was raised when the
prayer for deletion was made, the appellant did not _challenge tbe
F order of the Court delet"ing the other parties and omitting the relief
of recrimination and indeed he could not do so, since to the present
· appeal the other respondents are not parties and in their absence the
· validity of the Court's order · of deletion of the prayer for declaring
respondent 5-as duly elected and the. consequent deletion. of the
G prayer for recrimination as also the omission of the other parties
from "the category of respondent to the election . petition could not
be; allowed to be agitated as that would· be contrary to rules -of
.....
natural justice and likely.to prejudice those parties without affording
a reasonable opportunity to th.em of being heard. Moreover; it may
H be notked that special leave vias' obtained only against the subsequent ·
order of June 23, 1981, and no challenge at all was- raised against
• these previous orders. It is, therefore, clear that the earlier orders
P.N.T. THERA ~. B,L. SHANKER (Rangan'ath Misra, J.) . 701

of the Court could not possibly be regarded as a nullity and the
appellant is precluded from challenging those orders in this appeal. A
When proceed next to· examine whether the election. petiiion
could be dismissed in the absem-;e of the election petitioner and
whether the appellaf\t could apply for its restoration though lie him-
,self was not the election petitioner, The basis of the appellant's
contention that the_ election petition cannot be dismissed for the B
absence of the election petitioner is that once an election petition is
filed it concerns the· entire constituency. Purity of the electoral pro-
cess 'in a democracy: it is contended, is of paramount importanee and
an election petition cannot be permitted to b~ dismissed for. default
inasmuch as that would lead to situations. brought about by manipu- ,c
lation, und\le influence, fraud or winning over of the ~lection peti-
tioner.· The 2nd respondent's counsel bas.not disputed before us and
rightly in our view tl)at ·purity of the electoral process is paramount
in a democracy and an election peiition should no~ be permitted to .
be abandoned by undue influence or pressure .over the election peti-
tioner. n'may be pointed out that there was no allegation ofundue D
influence or pressure over the election petitioner to justify his con-
duct in this case. It is.relevant to mention that the 2nd respondent
who was the elected candidate was expelled from the Lok Sabha
in December 1978, and in August 1979, · the Lok . Sabha to
which respondent 2 had been elected was dissolved, It was after these
E
supervening events that in October 1979 the request to delete. prayer
(c) was made and the ·other orders followed. This explanation given
by respondent 2's counsel to. justify the conduct ·of the election
petitioner is a relevant feature.

. There .is no support. in the statute for the contention of the F
appellant that an election petition cannot be dismissed for. default.
The appellant contend_ed that def~ult of appearance or rion-pri>secu-
tion of the election petition must· be treated as on par with with- ·
drawal or abatement and therfore, through there is no clear provislon
in the Act, the same principle should govern and the ·obligation to
notify as provided _in s.s: 11? or! 16 of the Act should be made appli~ G
cable; We see no Just1ficat1on to accept such a contention. Non-pro·
secut10n or abandonment is cert~inly not withdrawal. WithdralVal is
a positive and volun~ary act ·while non-prosecution or abandonment.
may not necessarily be an act of volit_ion. It may spring from ne li-
ge_nce, indifference, inaction or even incapaCity or inability gto
H
prose.cute. In the case of withdrawal steps are . envisaged to be taken

A
/ '
702 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 1 s.c.R.

A
before the Court· iri accordance with ,the prescribed procedure. In ·~
the case of non-prosecution oc · abandonment, the 'election petitioner
does not appear before the Court and obtain any orders. We have
already indicated that the Act is a self-contained statute strictly lay- __,
ing down its own procedure and nothing can be read in it which is \.
·not there nor can its provisions be enlarged 'or extended by analogy; ~
B · 1n· fact, the terms of s. 87 of the Act clearly prescribe that if there be I
• no provision in the Act to the contrl!ry, the provisions of the Code
· would. apply and that would include Order 9, Rule 8 of the Code,
under which an election petition would be liable to be dismissed if.
the .election petitioner does not appear to prosecute the election
petition.
c
In" many cases it has been held that an election petition can be ~
dismissed for default. A full Bench of the Punjab High Court in
Jugo/ Kishore y. Dr Ba/dev Prakash,(') )lad occasion to consider this
question when Grover, J. delivering the judgment of the Court
D spoke thus :

"It has been repeat~dly said that an election petition
once filed is no( a contest only between the parties thereto
but continues for the benefit of the whole constituency.
· It ls for that purpose that in the· Representation of the
E · People Aci, 1951, provisions have been made in sections
I 09 and I IO relating to withdrawal of an election petition
and sections 112andI16 relating to abatement of such a
. petition. the effect of .which is t.hat the petition cannot
come to an end by the withdrawal there of by the death
Of the petitioner or by the death or ~ithdrawal of oppos·i-
F tion by the respondent, ·but is liable in such cases to be
'continued by any person who might have been a peti-
tioner. There is nothing in the entire Act providing or
indicating that a similar procedure is to be followed in the
event of a petitioner failing to prosecute the petition. such
G failure can be due to various causes. The petitioner ,can,
by force of circumstances, be genuinely rendered helples.s .
I
. to prosecute the petition. For instance, he may find that
his financial condition has suddenly worsen'ed and that he
can no longer afford .the expenses of litigation. He may
H even, owing to exigencies ·of. business or vocation or

-'(i)Aii J96S-Puojab & Haryaoa 152 at 158-159,
'' .
P.N. T. THERA v. B.L. SHANKER (Rangahath Misra, J.) . 703

profession, have to go to such a distant place from the
seat of the High Court where the election petition is being
tried that he may find it impossible to prosecute the
petition in a proper manner.· There would be two cour$es
open to him and that will depend entirely on his volition.
He can either file an application for withdrawal of the
petition disclosing the circumstances which have brought
about such a situation in which case there would be no B
difficulty in following the procedure laid down in sections
109 and 110 of the Act; or he may choose to simply
~bsent himself from the Court or cease to give any instru-
ctions to the counsel engaged by him· or fail to deposit the
process-fee and the diet money for witnesses or take·· the
necessary steps for summouing the witnesses in which
c
case the Court will have. no option but to dismiss the
elec.tion petition under the provisions of the Code· of .Civil
· Procedure which would be applicable to the election
petitions in the absence of any express provisions in the
Act .. The dismissal will have to be under the provisions D
contained in Order 9 or Order 17 of the Code...... .' It
is quite clear that there js no distinct provision in the Act
laying down. any particnlar or special procedure which is
to be followed when the petitioner chooses to commit
default either in appearance or in production of evidence
E
or generally in· prosecuting the petition. The provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure would, .herefore, be appli-
cable under section 87 of tbe Act. I am .further of the
opinion that ·any argument which could be pressed and
was adopted.. for saying that the inherent powers of the
Court could not be exercised in such circumstances would F
be of no avail now as the High Court is a Court of Record
. and possesses all the inherent powers of a Court while
trying election petitions."
It is relevant to note the observations of Hidayatullal\, CJ in
Sunder la/ Manna/a/ v. ·.Nandramdas Dwarkadas & Ors ..(1) where he G
indicated :
"Now the Act does not give- any power of dismissal.
But it is axiomatic that· no Court or tribunal is supposed
to contiaue a proceeding before it when the party who H
has moved it has not appeared ·nor cared to remain

• ·• (!) A.I.R. 1958 Madhya Pradesh 260,
' .

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (l984] I S,C,l\;

present. The' dismissal, therefore, is an inher~nt power
A which every tribunal possesses ....... "

Similar view· has been expressed by another Full· Bench of
the Allahabad High Court in Duryodhan v. Sitaram & Ors. (') A four
· Judge Bench of this Court in Rajendra Kumari Bajpai v. Ram Adhar
· YOdav & Ors. (') ref~rred ·to the ·Pu11jab case. Faial•Ali, J; speakln_g
B
on behalf of the Court quoted a portion of the judgment of Grover,
J. which we have cited above and said :

"We fully approve of the line of reasoning adopted
• by the HighCourt in that case."
. (:. . . .

It, t)lerefore, follows that the !;ode is applicable in disposing of- an·
election petition when the.election petitioner does not appear or fake
steps to prosecute the election petition· Dismissal of an election
petition. for default of appearance of the petitioner under the
provisions of either Or.der IX or Order XVII of the Code would,
D therefore,. be valid and would not be open to .challenge on the
ground that these- provisions providing for dismiS&al of the election
. petition for default do not apply.

The appellant wos not the election pctJ(Joner. Order IX, rule 9
E of the Code (and noirule 13 ;.elied upon by'thc appellant) would be
the relevant pro~ision for restoration of an election petition. That can
be invoked in an appr'li':iate case by the election petitioner only and .
· not by a respondent. By its own language, rule 9· provi_des that where
· a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, 1he plaintiff shall be
. :precluded from bringing a· fresh suit but he may apply for an order
F to se! the dismissal aside, Under this rule, _therefore; an application·
for restoration can be made only by the petitioner. Since it is a pro"
· vision. for restoration, it is .logical that the provision sbciiild be appli·
. cable only when the party on account of whose default in appearance
the petition was dismissed makes an application to. revive the petition
G to its former stage 'prior to dismissal. In th.e instant case the election
petitioner arid not respondent 19 who.is in appeal before us, could
have asked. for the relief of restoration. The appellant contended that
the statutory scheme authorises an elector at whose instance an
election petition could have been filed to get substituted in the ~vent
H ------------
,_(I) AIR !970All.1..
(2) (1976] I S.C.R. 255 at 260.

•
P.N.T. THERA v. B.L. SHANKER (J!.anganath Misra, J.) 70?

of withdrawal or abatement and applying that analogy, he urged that
· a petition for restoration would also lie at the· instance of a re;pon· A
dent. Tl)e ambit of the provisiol!_s relating to withdrawal and abate- ·
· men! cannot be extended to meet other situations. Specific provisions
have •, been
. made. in the Act to*deal .with the .two situations withdrawal
and abatement and a person . hitherto not a party or one 6( the
respondents who was entitled to file. an election peiition ·has been
B
. permitted to substitute himself in the election .petition and to pursue
the ·same in accordance with law. These provisions .. cannot be exten-
ded to an application under Order .IX, rule 9 of the Code and at the· .
instance ofa respondent or any other elector a dismissed . election
·petition cannot be restored ..
c
The fallacy in the logic advanced by the appellant in this behalf
is manifest when we refer to a suit for· partition. In a suit for parti•
tion the position of the plaintiff and. that of the defendant is int~r
changeable. So Jong as the suit is pending a defendant can ask the
Court to transpose him as a plaintiff.and a plaintiff can' also ask for .
being transposed as a dpfendant. The possibility of transposition. D
during .the pendency of the· suit would not permit a defendant to
apply for restoration of a suit for partition which· is dismissed for·
default and the right to apply for transposition would certainly come
to an end when the suit is no more alive. in our opinion ihe· respon-
dent's position in an election petition would not be higher than·that. E
We. therefore, conclude that an .election petition is liable to .be dfs·
missed for default in situ:ati 0 ns covered by Order IX, or Order XVII
of the Code and for its restoration an applicatioµ. under rule 9, Order
· IX of the Code would be maintainable but such application· for resto-
ration can be filed only by the election petitioner and not by any
respo1ident. F

This Court in Dhoom Singh v. Prakash Chandra Sethi & Ors.,(')
~: .
"The legislature in. its wisdom bas chosen to make
special provisions for the continuance of the election
petition only in ·case of its withdrawal or abatement. It
has yet not thought it fit to make any provision in the
Act permitting intervention of an elector oft.he consti·.
tuency in all contingencies of failures of the election peti·
tion eith~r ·dµe to the collusion .or,fraud of the original
•.
~.) 11975) 3 S.C.R.j95 at S99, ..
.701\ SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (1984] 1 s.c.R.

election petitioner or otherwise. It is not necessary for this .
Cour.t to express any opinion as to whether the omission
to do so is deliberate or inadv_!'rtent. It may l:ie a case of
• casus omissus. It-is a \veil-known rule of construction of
statutes that" A statute, even mor'l. than a contract, must . ·
be construed, ut res magis 1•a/eat quam pereat, so that the
.B . intentions of the legislature may nc:>t be treated as vain
or ·1eft to operate In the air"c A second consequent of.
this rule is that "a statute . may not be extended to meet a -
case for which provision has clearly and undoubtedly not.
been made" (see Craies on Statute Law).

e It seems plain that the High Court is -enjoined to
dismiss an election petition which does not comply with
the provisions of"section 81 or section 82 or section 117
of the Act. In the true cases of non-compliance with the
said provisions of law a question of intervention by· 1-
another· person may not arise. But there may be a case,
D as the instant one was alleged to be (we are expressing no
opinion of ours in this regard even by any implication
whether this was so or not), where as a result of the
fraud or collusion between t)\e election petitioner and the
returned. candidate the High Court is fraudulently misled
E to.act under section 86 (!}. Even in such a situation ~e
find no provision in the Act tinder which- the Hig~ Court
could permit a person. like the appellant to intervene in
the matter or to substantiate his allegations of fraud or-
collusion between the election petitioner and the returned
candidate. It is difficult to press into service the general
F principles of law. governing an election petition as was
sought to be done on behalf of the appellant for his
intervention in the matter. ff there be any necessity of
avoiding any such situation as the present one was said
·-I
to be it is for the legislature tointervene and make clear
and express provision of law for the .purpose."

The ratio· of ~his decision as also the observations in Basappa's
case, the qppellant contends, are wrorig in view of the earlier
decisions of this Court taking the view that an election dispute
·H involves the entire constituency because of the paramount necessity
. of having.purity of aq elecUor:i in a democracy safeguarded. We do

.
not think the appellant's contention can be accepted The earlier
. ' '
•
P.N.'f. THERA v. ~.i.. SHAN.J<ER (Ranganath Mi1ra, J.) 707 ·

decisions of this Court do not ·in any way militate against the view
taken in Dhoom Singh's case (supra) and the observations made in A
Basappa's case (supra) . . Those decisions were not concerned with
the-question as to whether an election petition can be dismissed for
default. The concensus of judicial opinion in this Court has. always
been that.the law in regard to elections has to bi:strictly applied and
to the extent provision has not been . made, the Code would be
applicable. About eight ye·ars back this Court had occasion to point
B
out that ii the intention uf the legislature was that a case of this
type ·should also qe cove~ed by special provision, "this intention was .·
not carried out and there was a la.cuna in the Act. We find that
even earlier in S!u!odhan Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam, (1) this· Court
had stated : c
-"From the above provmons it is seen that in an
. election petition, the contest is really between the consti·
tuency ()n the one side and the person or persons com-.
plained of on the other. Once the machinery of.the A.ct
·is moved by a candidate or an .elector, tlie carriage of the D
case does not cntii'cly rest with the petitioner. The reason
. for the elaborate provisions noticed by us earlier is
to ensure to the extent" possible that tlie persons wh~
offend the election law are not allowed to avoid the
consequences of their· misdeeds." E

(underlining is ours) '

We must assume that the legislature takes notice of the decisions
of this Court and if it was of the view that its true intention· had not
F
been carried out or that a lacuna re111ained in the statute it could •
have .. removed . the lacuna by amending the Act making its intention
clear and manife~t, particularly when many amendment.s have subse·
quently been made.. The fact that nothing has been done leaves an
impression in our mind that this Court had not misread the situation.
At any rate. it is not for the Court to fill up any lacuna in the le~sla· G
tion and as the law stand&, the appellant has no right to contend ~hat
the view taken by. this Court is not tenable in law. We may recall
the observation of Lord Denning in Seaford Estates v. Asher; (')

(I) [1969] 3 S.C.R. 416 at 421. .
H
(2) [194912 All B.R. 155.
708 SUPREME coui,lt REPORTS fl984) 1 s.C.R~ .

·· · "A judge· ·must' not .alter the material of which the
Act is woven, but he can and should iron· ou.t !he
·creases."
•
· All .the three ·contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant - -~
fail, We have already taken the view that at the instance of the
appellant the application for restoration · w:!s not maintainable.
B
Therefore, the appeal cannot be allowed and we cannot direct · resto·
ration of the election petition. Accordingly the appeal fails and is
· dismissed and. the order of tlie High Court is confirmed. We leave
the parties to bear their respective costs..

. N.V.K. Appeal dismissed,

•

~ .. ·
'

•