JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE problem at this stage is to decide whether in Para 4 (B)of the petition while naming "girdharilal Patel agent of respondent No. 2" as one of the speakers in a meeting at Badnawar on the 17ih February 1967, making an allegation against him which amounted to a corrupt practice, justifying the avoidance of the election of respondent No. 1 the petitioner actually meant the Girdharilal Patel Advocate, belonging to village Bidwal and practising at Badnawar, or whether, as he now makes out, he meant another girdharilal Patel, a cultivator from village Dholana. The difference is very material to the competency of the petition, if he really meant the Girdharilal patel Advocate at Badnawar, his petition would automatically fail for omitting to join him as a party respondent because this Girdharilal Patel Advocate had entered nomination papers as a candidate of the Kisan Sabha, and the papers being accepted, he had subsequently withdrawn when he found that the papers of respondent No. 2 Ramratan Patil another candidate of the same party were found in order; in other words, this Girdharilal Patel Advocate was in popular language the "shadow" or the "dummy" candidate. Anyway, the petitioner having made an allegation against him which he meant to be a corrupt practice he should have impleaded him also and his failure to do so would lead to the dismissal of the petition. ( 2. ) IN fact the respondent No. 1 who is contesting this petition sought to make a point of this and prayed that the petition should be dismissed for non- joinder of Girdharilal Patel. At that stage the petitioner sought an amendment to the effect that by "girdharilal Patel" in Para 4 (b) of the petition, he did not mean the Girdharilal Patel, Advocate, who was in the election picture, but another Girdharilal Patel whom in the amendment petition he described as resident of Dholana and in regard to whom he subsequently gave the parentage. Accordingly a preliminary issue was framed by the order dated 15th november 1967 : "is the Girdharilal Patel mentioned in Paragraph 4 (b) of the petition and described as the election agent of respondent No. 2, namely, Ramratan Dayaram Patel, the same is the girdharilal Patel son of Tulshiram Patel of Bidwal, Tahsil Badnawar who had been nominated as a candidate and had subsequently withdrawn?" Both parties have adduced oral evidence and have argued at some length. ( 3. ) A new point is sought to be made by the petitioner during argument; that whatever he had alleged in the passage is really no corrupt practice and he has not stated that it is one. Accordingly, even if he had really meant the girdharilal Patel the withdrawing candidate, still it was unnecessary for him to have impleaded this person. In addition to this the petitioner has tried to establish that though he had left the residence and parentage vague while naming Girdharilal Patel in the petition, still he really meant the Dholanawala and not the Advocate Girdharilal. ( 4. ) THE new argument, namely, that the petitioner did not make any allegation of corrupt practice against the Girdharilal Patel mentioned in para 4 (b) whoever it was, is altogether baseless. Actually the petitioner begins Para 4 asserting that- " (4) That the election of respondent No. 1 Shri Govardhan to the Legislature Assembly from the Badnawar Assembly Constituency No. 278 is void, inter alia, on the grounds given below: -Then follows the heading "grounds", " (a " is not of any significance for us: " (b)" begins-" (b) That speeches containing similar allegations were made by respondent No. 1 in public. . . . . . . . " This again does not bear on the present question. Then follows the sentence-"the extracts of the speeches of Shri Bam Ratan Patil, Respondent No. 2 and Shri Girdharilal Patel, election agent of respondent No. 2 as noted on the 17th February 1967 at Badnawar are filed at Annexure No. 2 and Annexure No. 3 respectively annexed hereto. " In the two annexures themselves it is averred respectively against the candidate ramratan Patil and against Girdharilal Patel, that they alleged in their speeches that the Congress candidate, that is the petitioner, had in return for a gift of rs. 15,000. " In the two annexures themselves it is averred respectively against the candidate ramratan Patil and against Girdharilal Patel, that they alleged in their speeches that the Congress candidate, that is the petitioner, had in return for a gift of rs. 15,000. 00 to 20,000 00 for the election expenses from a businessman at badnawar kept the ginning factory of the Marketing Society Idle". From the petitioners view point this is an allegation of fact which the makers knew to be false. Certainly the petitioner may have to prove on evidence that such speeches were made and the allegations were false to the knowledge of the speakers. Again, the mere publishing false hood by the respondent No. 2 or by Girdharilal Patel would not affect the election of respondent No. 1 unless it is shown that he had connived at it and this would certainly come up at the time of the hearing of the petition on merits. But at this stage it is clear that the petitioner has made these allegations with the intention that they might be held to be corrupt practice by the respective speakers for which directly or indirectly the respondent No. 1 also would be answerable. Whether he would be in a position to establish all this is not to be seen at this stage. All that we have to examine is whether an allegation amounting to corrupt practice has been made against a person who had been accepted as a candidate in the election, and who had subsequently withdrawn. ( 5. ) THIS takes us to the question of fact whether the Girdharilal Patel mentioned in the passage quoted above is the Girdharilal Patel, Advocate, or whether as the petitioner now wants us to believe he is the Girdharilal of dholana somebody quite different from the candidate Girdharilal. Before going into the evidence the mere examination of the passage quoted above and also of the annexures 2 and 3 attributed to the candidate Ramratan Patil and to Girdharilal Patel would indicate that no other than the Advocate Girdharilal had been meant. He has been described in the petition as the agent of respondent No. 2, namely, Ramratan Patil. Before going into the evidence the mere examination of the passage quoted above and also of the annexures 2 and 3 attributed to the candidate Ramratan Patil and to Girdharilal Patel would indicate that no other than the Advocate Girdharilal had been meant. He has been described in the petition as the agent of respondent No. 2, namely, Ramratan Patil. As it is, it is common ground that no agent properly so called was appointed by Ramratan by written authority ; but the Advocate Girdharilal Patel having withdrawn his candidature worked for this candidate all the time. This is what the Advocate Girdharilal himself states in his evidence as Witness No. 1 for the respondent and which has not been questioned. All that is said is that the other Girdharilal, namely, the dholanawala also worked for the same candidate; but the witness on that point namely, P. W. 3 Nandram Sharma states that there was only one occasion on which the other Girdharilal worked for Ramratan and that was also in the most casual manner. Nandram Sharma was asking people to come into his house to hear him explain the policy of the Kisan Sabha. This Girdharilal patel of Dholana was passing by and he also came in. As he was a Kisan, sharma asked him to address the people who had collected and he did so. Certainly this casual act of "working" for the Kisan Sabha, or for Ramratan patil would not justify hs being described as "the agent"; something more systematic and closer to the candidate was necessary. The Advocate Girdharilal Patel is a first cousin of the candidate Ramratan. In addition he entered his nomination paper on the distinct understanding that he would withdraw as ,soon as the papers of Ramratan were found in order and accepted. Actually he did so withdraw and immediately after began to work for Ramratan continuously and systematically so that he could in a sense have been described as his agent. ( 6. ) THE way in which Annexures 2 and 3 have been worded is most significant. They are meant to be read as one piece. Annexure 2 which is the earlier one begins: "public meeting on behalf of Kisan Sabha. date 17th February 1967. place Jawahar Chowk, Badnawar. time 9. 12 Night. President Nandram Sharma. Attendance 200. Speaker Ambaram Nirbhay Poem Recital. Speaker Ramratan Patil. . . (speech noted ). They are meant to be read as one piece. Annexure 2 which is the earlier one begins: "public meeting on behalf of Kisan Sabha. date 17th February 1967. place Jawahar Chowk, Badnawar. time 9. 12 Night. President Nandram Sharma. Attendance 200. Speaker Ambaram Nirbhay Poem Recital. Speaker Ramratan Patil. . . (speech noted ). . . " Then follows Annexure 3 without any of the preliminaries about date, place, time, President etc. which means that those in Annexure 2 have to be understood here as well; "speaker Girdharilal Patel. . . (speech noted ). . . Conclusion. Speaker Nandram Sharma President: Spoke on Foreign Policy. " This shows that the reference is certainly to the meeting on the night of the 17th, at the Jawahar Chowk, presided over by Nandram Sharma, in which ambaram Nirbhay started with the recital of a poem, which was followed by a speech by Ramratan, another speech by Girdharilal Patel, and concluding remarks particularly about the foreign policy made by the President. ( 7. ) NOW it is common ground that the only meeting on the 17th addressed by Ramratan Patil and Girdharilal Patel was at the Jawahar Chowk at about 9-0 P. M on the 17th February 1967. The Girdharilal Patel who addressed this meeting is admittedly the Girdharilal Patel Advocate, that is the withdrawing candidate. This would thus conclude that the petitioner meant in Para 4 (b) which has of course to be read along with the annexures that the Girdharilal Patel agent of respondent No 2 was the Advocate, that is the withdrawing candidate. Even without a reference to the annexures the trend of the passage in the petition is itself that the speech of Girdharilal Patel was the one made by him in a public meeting which was also addressed by ramratan. This is only confirmed by the annexures. ( 8. ) THE petitioners theory as given at this stage is that there were really two meetings on that date ; the first, a meeting or rather an informal private indoor talk at about 5-0 P. M. at the house of Nandram Sharma and the second, a public meeting at night about which, of course, there is no controversy. ( 8. ) THE petitioners theory as given at this stage is that there were really two meetings on that date ; the first, a meeting or rather an informal private indoor talk at about 5-0 P. M. at the house of Nandram Sharma and the second, a public meeting at night about which, of course, there is no controversy. According to the petitioner in his evidence in this preliminary hearing it was the meeting or the private discussion group at Nandram Sharmas house that was addressed by the Dholanawala Girdharilal Patel; and further, while annexure 2 refers to the public meeting at night, Annexure 3 refers 1o the private meeting if one may so call it at Nandram Sharmas house which was addressed by the Dholanawala Girdharilal Patel. This emerges from the statements of the three witnesses examined by the petitioner whose evidence in this regard is just hearsay, and Sadikali Bohra and Nandram sharma himself. As far as the petitioner is concerned, most of his statements have no value independently of those of the two other witnesses. But on one point he is certainly making a poor case. According to him Annexures 2 and 3 do not refer to the same meeting, and the contents of Annexure 2 were supplied by a man named Champalal while those of Annexure 3 were supplied by Sadikali (P. W. 2 ). This does not at all fit in with the manner in which the annexures are worded as already set out earlier. Otherwise all that one gets from the petitioner is that Sadikali told him that he was called to a "meeting" by Nandram Sharma at his house where the Dholanawala Girdharilal patel gave a speech. Sadikali claims to have made notes of this speech and passed them on to the petitioner. About the details of the manner of the notes taking and passing them on to the petitioner there are contradictions : but I would not decide any problem merely on such contradictions. The point is that the theory of two meetings an earlier one at Nandrams house and a later on presided over by Nandram himself within 3 or 4 hours in a public place is hardly satisfactory. The point is that the theory of two meetings an earlier one at Nandrams house and a later on presided over by Nandram himself within 3 or 4 hours in a public place is hardly satisfactory. If indeed Nandram was having a sort of private meeting at his house calling the passers by to explain to them the policy of the Kisan sabha, he is not likely to have extended a special invitation to Sadikali Bohra who was known to be. a worker on the side of the Congress party ; nor was he likely to have asked some passer-by to address the meeting on his own behalf while he himself, that is, Nandram Sharma had taken the trouble of calling them for a private informal indoor explanation of his partys policy. Nandram sharmas own evidence is far from satisfactory. He is making a case of special pleading. All this shows what appears from the petition and annexures that there was only one public meeting on that day, that is, the 17th February and it was in the Jawahar Chowk at night and was presided over by Nandram sharma and was addressed by Ramratan Patil and following him by Girdharilal Patel, admittedly the Advocate Girdharilal Patel. ( 9. ) THERE is nothing new in the evidence of the Advocate Girdharilal patel examined by the respondent because most of what he says is found in the petition itself. It is the petitioner that has tried to propound the theory of two meetings and two Girdharilal Patels one of them being addressed by the second Girdharilal Patel, that is the man from Dholana. This is not at all convincing. ( 10. ) IT is not necessary for us to guess whether or not the second Girdharilal Patel, that is the one from Dholana would if examined have helped in clearing the mystery, intentionally created by the amendment sought by the petitioner. As it is, he was summoned as a witness and when he did not turn up, the petitioner was not keen on coercive process but gave him up which is perfectly understandable. At the same time he has in his petition alleged that this Girdharilal Patel has gone under the influence of the respondent. There is altogether no justification for this. At the same time he has in his petition alleged that this Girdharilal Patel has gone under the influence of the respondent. There is altogether no justification for this. If indeed he is a worker for the Kisan sabha, there is no reason why he would not have as has Nandram Sharma himself come to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner. ( 11. ) THE result of the discussion is that the petition and the annexures show clearly that the petitioner meant the Girdharilal Patel of Bidwal who was in the picture of the election, namely, the Advocate who was practising at badnawar and who having filed his nomination papers withdrew later on when the papers of Ramratan Patil had been accepted. It is this Girdharilal Patel who worked for Ramratan and who delivered the speech at the meeting on the night of the 17th February in which according to the petitioner the allegation quoted in Annexure 3 had been made. By some oversight the petitioner has failed to implead this Girdharilal Patel: when faced with the effects of this non-joinder he has tried to make out that he was thinking of another Girdharilal Patel, which is only an afterthought to save the petition from being dismissed. ( 12. ) THE result is that the petition is dismissed and it is further ordered that the petitioner should pay Rs. 100. 00 (one hundred only) to the contesting respondent Goverdhan by way of costs and pleaders fee. The petitioner is allowed to withdraw the balance of the deposit. Petition dismissed.