JUDGMENT : Shah, J. 1. There is no substance in this appeal. At the last General Elections held in February 1967 the first respondent was declared on February 23, 1967 elected to the Gujarat State Assembly from the Dariapur Kazipur Assembly Constituency. On April 10, 1967 the appellant who had contested the election preferred a petition in the High Court of Gujarat for an order setting aside the election of the first respondent and for a further order that the fourth respondent be declared elected. In the petition it was averred that the first respondent and his election agent Jamna Shanker Pandya and other agents with their consent had committed corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123(3)(3- A) and (4) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951, in that on February 6, 1967 an election pamphlet entitled "Dariapur Kazipur Constituency" was published in the name of one Shri Damubhai Chaganlal Shukla, Convener, Election Propaganda Committee, Ahmedabad City Congress Committee, Ahmedabad, maligning the left communist party and the appellant and exhorting the voters to vote for the first respondent. Jamna Shanker Pandya was one of the persons who had filed his nomination for election to the constituency, bur he had later withdrawn his candidature. Jamna Shanker Pandya was, however, not impleaded as a party respondent to the petition, even though specific allegations of corrupt practices were made against him in the election petition. The first respondent applied to the High Court praying for an order that the election petition was liable to be dismissed because Jamna Shanker Pandya against whom allegations of corrupt practice were made was not impleaded as a party respondent. The appellant then applied on June 16, 1967 for an order under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure impleading Jamna Shanker Pandya as a party respondent. The High Court rejected the application, and ordered that the election petition do stand dismissed for want of compliance with Section 82 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Against that order this appeal has been preferred. 2. The High Court rejected the application, and ordered that the election petition do stand dismissed for want of compliance with Section 82 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Against that order this appeal has been preferred. 2. Section 79 of the Act defines "candidate" as meaning a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election, and any such person shall be deemed to have been a candidate as from the time when, with the election in prospect, he began to hold himself out as a prospective candidate. Section 81 provides that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (i) of Section 100 and Section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within fortyfive days from, but not earlier than, the date of election of the returned candidate. Section 82 provides that a petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition- (a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition." Section 86 provides by the first sub-section that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 of the Act. 3. This Court has held that a person who had been nominated as a candidate for an election and has since withdrawn his candidature is for the purpose of Section 82 a candidate and he must be impleaded in a petition if any allegations of corrupt practice are made against him whether committed before or after his withdrawal in the election petition. Har Swarup v. Brij Bhushan Saran, (1967) 1 SCR 342 at 347; Mohan Singh v. Bhanwar Lal, (1964) 5 SCR 12 and Amin Lal v. Hunna Mal, (1965) 1 SCR 393 . Har Swarup v. Brij Bhushan Saran, (1967) 1 SCR 342 at 347; Mohan Singh v. Bhanwar Lal, (1964) 5 SCR 12 and Amin Lal v. Hunna Mal, (1965) 1 SCR 393 . Jamna Shanker Pandya being a necessary party to the election petition, failure to implead him rendered the election petition defective, and the High Court was bound to dismiss the election petition. 4. It is, however, urged that the defect in the petition control rectified by impleading the candidate who should have been impleaded under Section 82 (b) and the High Court in holding that it was incompetent to exercise power under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure committed a grave error of law. This application for impleading Jamna Shanker Pandya was made on June 16, 1967 - nearly four months after the date of election of then returned candidate. 5. By Section 82(b) any candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made is a necessary party and the Parliament has fixed a period of forty five days from the date of the election of the returned candidate for presentation of an election petition. There is no provision in the Act which enables that period to be extended. Any attempt to join Jamna Shanker Pandey would amount to lodging an election petition against him on the day on which the application for impleading him was made and could not on the plain terms of Section 81(2) read with Section 82(b) be entertained after the expiry of 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. It is unnecessary in this case to decide whether Section 87 of the Act invests the High Court with power under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code to implead in a pending election petition, a person who was by virtue of Section 82(b) a necessary party before the expiry of the period prescribed by Section 81(2). Assuming that the High Court may in an appropriate case pass an order notwithstanding the provisions of Section 86 of the Act, the power can never be exercised after the expiry of the period prescribed for filling a substantive election petition. In our judgment, the High Court was right in holding that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable. 6. In our judgment, the High Court was right in holding that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable. 6. The petition was, as presented, defective; and the defect could not after the expiry of the period prescribed by Section 81(2) be rectified. The High Court was, therefore, bound to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 82 of the Act. 7. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.