Judgment M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) ORDER :- This order will dispose of the application for amendment of the Election Petition presented by the petitioners today, reply whereof has already been filed. ( 2 ) THE application for amendment was presented as objections were raised at the time of recording of the examination-in-chief of the petitioner Bhom Raj yesterday and so, time was sought for submission of the application for amendment. The petitioners have sought amendment in the heading of Cols. 2, 4 and 5 of Sch. I annexed with the petition. Besides that, the words "to the voters" are sought to be added after the words "polling stations" occurring in para 11 of the Election Petition. ( 3 ) I may extract the relevant paras 11 and 12 for the proper understanding of the amendments, which are being sought by the petitioners. Paras 11 and 12 of the Election Petition are reproduced hereunder :-"11. That Anns. 1 and 2 were widely distributed published in the entire Constituency on the night intervening 4th and 5th March 1985 as well as while the polling was in progress and particularly near the polling stations. The publication of Annx.-1 and 2 was done by the respondent himself, his election agent Shri Dayendra Singh as well as his agents/workers with the consent of We respondent or his election agent. Some of the instances of the publication with full particulars relating to the time, date, place and the persons responsible for the distribution as well as the persons to whom the same were distributed are set out in Schedule i annexed to the petition. 12. That the respondent, his election agent Shri Davendre Singh and his agents/workers for the respondent with the consent of the respondent or his election agent published Annx.-1 and 2 containing defamatory statements which are false and were believed to be false by them and which were not believed to be true in relation to the personal character and conduct of Smt Kanta Khaturia and the aforesaid statements were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of her election. "para 11 makes reference to the Schedule i. The Schedule gives the details of distribution of pamphlets Annx.-1 and Newspaper Annx.- 2. "para 11 makes reference to the Schedule i. The Schedule gives the details of distribution of pamphlets Annx.-1 and Newspaper Annx.- 2. The heading and sub-heading of the Schedule k as they exist at present are as under :- "schedule i Details of Distribution of Pamphlets and Newspaper kranti Bigul S. No. Person who distributed Date Village where the Before whom the pamphlets pamphlets distributed distributed 1 2 3 4 5 ( 4 ) IT would appear from the sub-heading of col. 2 that the sub-heading does not make any reference in respect of the distribution of -the Newspaper. Similarly, the sub-heading No. 5 does not make any reference of the persons to whom the pamphlets Annx.-1 and Newspaper Annx.-2 were distributed. The petitioners now want to substitute the sub-heading of Cols. 2, 4, 5 and as under :-"2. person who distributed Annx.-1 pamphlets and Annx.- 2 Newspaper kranti Bigul 4. village/place, where Annx.-1 and Annx.-2 were distributed. ( 5 ) to and before whom, Annx.- 1 and Annx.- 2 were distributed to the voters. 5. It would also appear from perusal of para 11 that para 11 does not contain as to whom Annx.- 1 and Annx.- 2 were distributed, i. e. there is no general allegation that Annx.-1 and 2 were distributed to the voters, so, the words to the voters are sought to be introduced after the words "polling stations". ( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, it is urged that the material facts relating to the corrupt practice, are clearly stated in para 11. The details of the particulars of the commission of corrupt practice have been given in the Schedule. What is being sought by way of amendment is simply application and clarity in the averments made in para 11. Mr. Singhvi submitted that in para 11, it has been specifically averred that Annx.-1 and 2 were widely distributed in the public by the respondent himself, by his election agent Shri Devendra Singh and by his agents and workers with the present of the respondent or his election agent and only some instances have been given stating the names of those persons in the Schedule i. In the sub-para of para 11, it has been stated that the Schedule gives out the names of the persons responsible for the distribution as well as the persons to whom the same were distributed. If the Schedule is read along with the averments for para 11, it should be taken that the Col. 2 gives out the names of the persons, who distributed the pamphlets Annx.- 1 and Newspaper Annx.- 2, and Col. 5 should be taken to state the names of the persons to whom and before whom Annx.- 1 and 2 were distributed to the voters. The amendments sought do not in any way introduce any new corrupt practice. ( 7 ) MR. L. R. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the averments of para 11 as well as the contents of Schedule i are ex facie laconic. The petitioners are not only trying to introduce the particulars of the alleged corrupt practice but by amendments, which are being sought, they are trying to introduce a new corrupt practice in the manner whereby they are trying to specify that the names of the persons appearing in Col. 2 are the agents and workers of the respondent and Annx.-1 and 2 both were distributed by them and they were distributed to the persons mentioned in Col. 5, Column No. 2 is silent about the distribution of the newspaper Annx.- 2 and Col. 5 is also silent about the names of the persons to whom Annx.-1 and 2 were distributed. ( 8 ) IT may be stated that under Sub-Sec. (5) of S. 86, the amendments are permissible when the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition, are sought to be amplified or amended. What is impermissible is that any amendment, which will have the effect of introducing the particulars of corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition. There is a clear bar for seeking such an amendment. ( 9 ) SO the whole controversy is as to whether the amendments sought to be introduced, introduce a new corrupt practice, which has not been alleged in the petition. There is a clear bar for seeking such an amendment. ( 9 ) SO the whole controversy is as to whether the amendments sought to be introduced, introduce a new corrupt practice, which has not been alleged in the petition. It may be mentioned that the averments in paras 11 and 12 have to be read along with the Schedule and allegations have been made categorically in para 11 with regard to the commission of corrupt practice by the respondent and the corrupt practice alleged is that Annx.-1 and 2 were distributed on the night intervening 4/5-3-85 while the polling was in progress and this was done by the respondent, by his election agent as well as his agents and workers with the consent of the respondent or his election agent and some instances were given for distribution of Annx.- 1 and 2 in the Schedule i. It is true that the subheadings do not clearly make out what is alleged in the petition. To my mind, the amendments are simply amplifications and clarifications of para 11. The Schedule i has to be read along with the averments made in paras 11 and 12. It may be stated that if it is taken that the newspaper kranti Bigul was not distributed at all then there would have been no mention in the main heading in the Schedule about newspaper kranti Bigul and there would have been no verification of the nature, which has been made in the Schedule, wherein, the petitioner Bhomraj has verified the Schedule in the manner that the Schedule gives out the details of distribution of the pamphlets Annx.- 1 and the newspaper Annx. 2. Similarly in Col. 5, the word to is missing but this column should be read along with sub-para 2 of para 11, which clearly states that the names of the person to whom, Annx.- 1 and Annx.- 2 were distributed, is given in the Schedule, It would appear that there are omissions in the Schedule but such omissions can be set right by way of amendment and that would not amount to introducing of a new corrupt practice. So far as introduction of the words "to the voters" are concerned, it may be stated that if para 11 is read along with para 12, then it would appear that the distribution of pamphlets, which are said to be reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the defeated candidate, would be to the voters. Election prospects can be affected only by distribution of the material to the voters and so, I do not think that by introduction of the words "to the voters" a new cause of action is sought to be introduced, In my opinion, the application for amendment deserves to be allowed.