Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 886 (MP)

Sahodra Bai v. Ashok Kumar

2011-08-08

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2011
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THESE two petitions are arising out of two different orders but passed in one election petition by the Election Tribunal, constituted and presided over by II Additional District judge, Khurai, District Sagar, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. In this order first the matter relating to W. P. No. 10200/2010 would be dealt with and facts are taken from this petition only. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts are that the election of President of Municipal Council, Khurai, was held in the year 2009 in which the petitioner was elected as President of the aforesaid Municipal Council. Calling in question her election and specifically making a prayer for recounting of votes, the respondent No. 1 in this writ petition filed an election petition before the II Additional District Judge, Khurai, District Sagar, constituting the Election Tribunal, as per the provisions of section 20 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). It was contended by the election-petitioner that the counting of votes was not rightly done, as a result the petitioner herein was said to be declared elected by 24 votes. Incidentally the election-petitioner is said to be the husband of one of the candidates in the election namely Smt. Abha Ahirwar. According to him, he being an Elector, was competent to file the election petition for recounting of the votes as also declaring the result of the election in appropriate manner after recounting of the votes. The election petition was entertained. Notices were issued and the petitioner herein, the returned candidate, filed the objection under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 24 of the Act. It was categorically contended that as per the provisions of section 22 of the Act, an election petition required to be filed under section 20 of the Act must contain the reliefs for declaring the result of the election as void but for the said purpose, material facts should be brought on record in the election petition. It was contended that the election petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, the election-petitioner, was not contending any such material facts and as such there was no question of entertaining any such election petition. It was contended that the election petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, the election-petitioner, was not contending any such material facts and as such there was no question of entertaining any such election petition. It was very categorically contended in this application that since there is nothing pleaded in respect of irregularities committed in counting of the votes, there was no cause of action available to the election-petitioner to file an election petition. ( 3. ) ANOTHER objection taken by the petitioner herein was that under the provisions of section 21 of the Act it is specifically provided that the election-petitioner can seek setting aside of the entire election as also declaring any particular candidate as elected after trial of the election petition. Since the election-petitioner was not a candidate in the election and since he has not claimed declaration of the result of the election as void, counting of the votes afresh and declaring a particular person elected, therefore, in such an election-petition, no relief could be granted to the respondent No. 1 herein. ( 4. ) A reply to the said application for dismissal of the election-petition was submitted by the election-petitioner denying all the allegations made and it was submitted that since the election of the President of the Municipal Council is direct election, therefore, each and every voter of the said Municipal Council area was competent to file an election petition. There is no bar under the Act that the electors of the area of the Municipal Council cannot file an election petition seeking recounting of the votes as is provided in the Act itself and, therefore, it was not correct on the part of the petitioner to contend that the election petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is further contended that sufficient material constituting irregularities committed in the counting of the votes, warranting a direction for recounting of the votes, have been pleaded in the election petition and, therefore, the same was not to be dismissed at the threshold, instead of contesting the election petition on merits, the petitioner herein was taking shelter of such dilatory practice to avoid any just and proper order against her. The prayer was made to reject the application of the petitioner herein. The prayer was made to reject the application of the petitioner herein. Learned Election Tribunal heard the matter at length and passed the order on 23-7-2010 dismissing the application of the petitioner and directed filing of the written statement, therefore, this writ petition has been filed. ( 5. ) SHRI Vipin Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the law is well settled in this respect and right from very beginning it has been held that the absence of material facts will lead in dismissal of the election petition because there would not be any cause of action available to the election-petitioner to file an election petition. Drawing the attention of the Court to the pleadings made in the election petition, copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure P-1, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in paragraph 3 it is alleged that there were irregularities and manipulations in the counting of the votes and the election agent of respondent No. 2, a candidate in the election, had raised the objection orally before the Returning Officer but such objections were not taken into account and only this much was said by the election officer that after completing the counting of the votes in all wards, the matter will be examined. It is further stated that in the entire petition nothing is contended with respect to the particular manipulation of the votes or counting of the votes in improper manner nor it has been said in the entire petition as to how many votes of the other candidates were manipulated and mingled with the votes of the petitioner herein. As a result, it was not possible to infer what was the irregularities or illegalities or manipulations in the counting of the votes and, therefore, no cause of action was available to the election-petitioner, the respondent No. 1, to challenge the election of the returned candidate. The allegations as made in the entire election petition, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, do not constitute a cause of action for filing of an election petition and as such the same was liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 24 of the Act. It is contended that the learned Election Tribunal has not considered these aspects and without assigning any reason in appropriate manner, has rejected the valid objection raised by the petitioner with respect to the maintainability of the election petition and, thus, the order passed by the Court below is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the present is a fit case in which extraordinary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be invoked by this Court and the objection raised by the petitioner herein be affirmed, allowing the application of the petitioner, the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 may be dismissed. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of M. Chinnasamy vs. K. C. Palanisamy and others, AIR 2004 SC 541 . A further reliance is placed in the case of Harkirat Singh vs. Amrinder Singh, AIR 2006 SC 713, and in the case of Virendra Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh and others, 2007(3) SCC 617 as well as a decision of this Court in the case of Sukh Lal Kushwaha vs. Ganesh Singh, 2010(2) MPLJ 194 = 2010(3) M.P.H.T. 483. On the basis of these cases, it is vehemently contended that in absence of the material facts, the specific pleadings of irregularities in the counting of votes, no cause of action was available to the election-petitioner for filing of the election petition and as such the election petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Per contra, it is contended vehemently by Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, that sufficient material was pleaded as per the requirement of the law to constitute a cause of action for filing of the election petition by the election petitioner and, therefore, such an objection raised by the petitioner was rightly turned down by the Election Tribunal. It is contended that in the election petition itself the facts have been brought to the notice that since the wife of election petitioner Smt. Abha Ahirwar was a candidate of the election of the President of Municipal Council, Khurai, the election-petitioner was fully aware of the election proceedings and procedure. It is contended that in the election petition itself the facts have been brought to the notice that since the wife of election petitioner Smt. Abha Ahirwar was a candidate of the election of the President of Municipal Council, Khurai, the election-petitioner was fully aware of the election proceedings and procedure. The petition, thus, was being filed by the election-petitioner in his capacity as an Elector and sufficient material to indicate how the irregularity in counting of the votes was done, was brought on record of the election petition constituting a cause of action for filing of an election petition under the provisions of section 20 of the Act. It is further contended that the grounds for setting aside the election or declaring election to be void are enumerated in section 22 of the Act and the election petition is confined to the grounds mentioned in sub-section (l)(d) of section 22 of the Act. It is contended that the allegations are made that the result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance or refusal of any vote or reception of any vote, which is void. Thus, it is contended that the recounting is asked for and declaration of result of election as per the recounting of the votes and for that since the election petition was full in respect of the provisions contained in section 20, the objection raised by the petitioner herein was rightly rejected. Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of section 20 of the Act, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has contended that the relief can be asked for cancellation of the entire election or setting aside the election of a returned candidate and a further claim can be made for declaring the election-petitioner or any other candidate as elected after the conclusion of the election petition proceedings. However, it is sufficient if a relief is claimed to the effect that the result of the election of the President of the Municipal Council, Khurai, be set aside after recounting of the votes and a proper result of the election after recounting of votes may be declared. However, it is sufficient if a relief is claimed to the effect that the result of the election of the President of the Municipal Council, Khurai, be set aside after recounting of the votes and a proper result of the election after recounting of votes may be declared. It is further contended that the respondent No. 1 moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with sections 141 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the election petition claiming specifically a relief in the manner that after recounting of the votes, the election of the returned candidate be set aside and the lawful result of the election may be declared. It is contended that such an application was also contested and during pendency of the present writ petition, since the said application of respondent No. 1 has been rejected by the Election Tribunal, Writ Petition No. 18161/2010 has been filed by the election-petitioner, which is pending consideration before this Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 placed his reliance in the case of Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs. C. P. Joshi, AIR 2011 SCW 1061, and it is contended that no roving enquiry is necessary by the Election Tribunal at the initial stage and only after recording of the evidence, the Court is required to satisfy itself that a prima facie case is established, the material facts and full particulars have been pleaded and after examining the irregularities in the counting of the votes and guarding secrecy of the ballot, recounting of the votes can be ordered. Thus, it is contended that the Election Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner herein. It is further pointed out that there is vast difference between material facts and material particulars. Relying on the decision in the case of Virendra Nath Gautam (supra) it is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent No 1 that sufficient facts were available on record to constitute a cause of action and, therefore, no illegality was committed by the Election Tribunal in rejecting the objection of the petitioner for dismissal of the election petition at the threshold without commencing the trial. It is, thus, contended that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the Election Tribunal warranting interference in the order passed by the Tribunal on the objection of the petitioner, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is claimed that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 7. ) AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record, it is deemed necessary that the provisions of the Act with respect to the filing of the election petition, the requirement of the law so as to specific pleadings in respect of any allegations constituting a cause of action for filing of election petition, various aspects dealt with by the Courts in this respect in the past, be examined. Firstly, it is deemed appropriate to consider the provisions of the Act with respect to the filing of the election petition. ( 8. ) FOR the purposes of convenience, entire provisions of section 20 of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow : "20. Election petitions. - (1) No election or (nomination) under this Act shall be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) Such petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in section 22 : (a) by any candidate at such election or (nomination); or (b) (i) in the case of an election of a Councillor, by any voter of the ward concerned; (ii) in the case of a (nomination) of Councillor, by any Councillor; (iii) in the case of election of President by any voter of the Municipal area, to the District Judge, where such election or (nomination) is held within the revenue district in which the Court of the District Judge is situate, and in any other case, to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the revenue District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the revenue district in which such election or (nomination) is held and if there be more than one such Additional District Judge within the said revenue district, to such one of them as the District Judge may specify for the purpose (hereinafter such District Judge or Additional District Judge referred to as Judge). (3) No petition presented under sub-section (2) shall be admitted unless : (i) it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election or (nomination) was notified in the Gazette; and (ii) it is accompanied by a Government Treasury receipt showing a deposit of two hundred rupees, in the case of (election or nomination to Municipal Councils) and one hundred rupees in the case of (election or nomination to Nagar Panchayats). (4) A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition : (a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election or (nomination), as the case may be, 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 or (nominated), 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. (5) An election petition shall: (a) contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) set forth with sufficient particulars, the ground or grounds on which the election or (nomination) called in question; (c) be Signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings. Section 20 of the Act specifically prescribe that no election or nomination under this Act shall be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this section. It is further provided that such petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in section 22. By an amendment made in sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Act, it is provided that in the case of election of a President, an election petition can be filed by any voter of the municipal area. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No. 1 being a voter/elector of the municipal area, is competent to file the election petition against the election of the President of the said Municipal Council. It is also seen from the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act that the compliance of the said provision is made. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No. 1 being a voter/elector of the municipal area, is competent to file the election petition against the election of the President of the said Municipal Council. It is also seen from the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act that the compliance of the said provision is made. Sub-section (4) of section 20 requires impleading the parties in the election petition. In case the entire election is called in question, all candidates including the returned candidate of the said election are required to be impleaded as party and this compliance is also done by the respondent No. 1. ( 9. ) NOW the most important aspect is sub-section (5) of section 20 of the Act. It is categorically provided in sub-section (5) or section 20 of the Act that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and will also set forth sufficient particulars, or grounds on which the election or nomination is called in question. Therefore, it is clear that the election petition should not only give the concise material facts but also give sufficient particulars so as to make out a case for filing of a election petition against the election of a President of the Municipal Council. The important aspect is sufficient particulars and material facts, it is, thus, a requirement that before admitting an election petition, the Election Tribunal must examine whether material facts have been pleaded and sufficient particulars with respect to allegations and improper conduct of election have been given or not. The Apex Court dealing in the case relating to the election has categorically held in the case of Virendra Nath Gautam (supra) the distinction between the material facts and particulars. The same aspect or to some extent the provisions of Representation of People Act contained in section 83(l)(a) were examined by the Apex Court and since the similar provisions are made in sub-section (5) of section 20 of the Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the said case is more appropriate and is applicable. The distinction only is that the full particulars in that respect and in case of Virendra Nath Gautam (supra) were in respect of corrupt practices and not with respect to the recounting of the votes. The distinction only is that the full particulars in that respect and in case of Virendra Nath Gautam (supra) were in respect of corrupt practices and not with respect to the recounting of the votes. However, for the purposes of understanding the difference between the material facts and material particulars, in paragraph 31 of the report in S.C.C., the Apex Court in the case of Virendra Nath Gautam (supra) has considered thus: "31. The expression "material facts" has neither been defined in the Act nor in the Code. According to the dictionary meaning "material" means "fundamental", "vital", "basic", "cardinal", "central", "crucial", "decisive", "essential", "pivotal", "indispensable", "elementary" or "primary", (Burton's Legal Thesaurus (3rd Edn.), p.349). The phrase "material facts", therefore, may be said to be those facts upon which a party relies for his claim or defence. In other words, "material facts" are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defence depends. What particulars could be said to be "material facts" would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. It is, however, absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish the existence of a cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleading by the party." Thus, it is clear that there is material difference between the material particulars and material facts. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has put his reliance with respect to all cases referred to in above paragraphs where corrupt practices were alleged by the election-petitioner for seeking a relief of declaration that the election results were bad. Similar was the situation in the case of Harkirat Singh (supra) but the said aspect was not before the Apex Court in the case of Harkirat Singh because the same was decided in the year 2005 and the decision in the case of Virendra Nath Gautam (supra) came on 8-12-2006. In the case of M. Chinnasamy (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with an election petition with respect to the claim made for recounting of the votes. In the case of M. Chinnasamy (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with an election petition with respect to the claim made for recounting of the votes. However, that decision was also based on the facts, which have come in the evidence led in the election petition before the Election Tribunal and, therefore, the Court was of the view that the particular evidence which could have been produced before the Election Tribunal was not produced, therefore, directing the recounting of votes by the High Court was said to be improper. The case was not relating to rejection of the election petition at the threshold on the ground that material particulars were not furnished. This being so, the case of M. Chinnasamy (supra) is distinguishable insofar as particulars which could be proved but were not proved, are not available in the present case as the trial of the election petition here in this case has not yet started nor any evidence is recorded by the Election Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the case of Sukh Lal Kushwaha (supra) but again this case was dealing with an election petition where corrupt practice was made a ground for setting aside the election of the returned candidate. In the present case in hand, there are no allegations of corrupt practices made in the election petition nor on the basis of such a ground, the election is called in question. No relief has been claimed by the election-petitioner in this respect. Therefore, the particulars of such a conduct are required to be examined in the context of the relief claimed and the ground on which the said relief is claimed. ( 10. ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has placed his reliance in the case of Kalyan Singh Chouhan (supra) and has contended that material facts are required to be submitted but the material particulars are required to be proved by adducing evidence and since the law is well settled after examining the various laws laid-down by the Apex Court, it is contended by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that the stage at when such an application can be considered has not reached as yet. It is further contended by the learned Counsel that the law is well settled on this count that a returned candidate should not be taken by surprise and should be aware of the allegations made against him or her. On what count the election is sought to be set aside must be recorded in the election petition but the evidence is not required to be pleaded and, therefore, the full particulars will come only when the evidence is led on the basis of material placed before the Court. Considering this particular aspect, now if the law laid-down by this Court is examined, again it will be found that distinction was drawn by the Courts in the material facts and material particulars only when the evidence was recorded in the election petition and not at a preliminary stage when only a notice was issued to the returned candidate and an objection alone was filed without even filing the written statement by the returned candidate. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the stage when such an objection could have been considered was not reached and, therefore, the Election Tribunal was right in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the election petition on technical grounds at the preliminary stage. The view has been expressed by this Court in relation to the elections of local bodies but in such cases, distinction drawn by the Apex Court with respect to the material facts and particulars was not tested in terms of the relief claimed in the election petition, disputed in the present writ petition. Here since the relief is claimed with a limited aspect, i.e. recounting of votes, only this much is required to be seen whether such pleadings of the election-petitioner are sufficient to constitute a cause of action for filing of the election petition before the Election Tribunal. ( 11. ) A perusal or the election petition, placed on record as Annexure P-1 of the writ petition, will indicate that in paragraph 4 of the election petition, the election-petitioner has categorically contended that on 17-12-2009 the counting of the votes was done and an objection was raised by the election agent of the respondent No. 2 in the election petition on 17-12-2009 but the same was not decided and the result of the returned candidate was declared. In paragraph 5 of the election petition it is contended that in total 27 wards of the Municipal Council, the number of voters is 25750. Only 20324 voters have exercised their right to vote. Out of the aforesaid, 1052 votes were declared invalid. Fourteen postal votes were received and the total valid votes were 19272. In paragraph 6 it is said that after the counting of the votes, the returned candidate, petitioner herein, was declared at S. No. 1. The respondent No. 2 in the election petition was declared at S. No. 2 and thus the returned candidate was declared elected by a margin of 24 votes. In paragraph 8 it is contended that the counting of votes was done in haphazard manner and by manipulation in the counting of votes, the result of election has been declared. In the grounds contained in the election petition, in paragraph 3 it is said that the valid votes secured in favour of contesting candidate, the respondent No. 2, were put in the valid votes of returned candidate and in the votes secured by respondent No. 5 in the election petition and this was objected to by the election agent of the respondent No. 2 immediately orally but an assurance was given that in case such things have happened, the same will be corrected after completing the counting of all the votes of all the wards. It is contended that such an assurance was believed by the election agent of the respondent No. 2. In paragraph 5 of the grounds it is said that counting of the votes continuously was not done and in the break since the votes were not sealed, therefore, the manipulation of votes has taken place. In paragraph 6 of the grounds it is contended that an application was made by the election agent of respondent No. 2 before the Election Officer at 4:15 P.M. on 17-12-2009 with respect to the counting of votes of all wards casted for election of the President of the Municipal Council. In paragraph 6 of the grounds it is contended that an application was made by the election agent of respondent No. 2 before the Election Officer at 4:15 P.M. on 17-12-2009 with respect to the counting of votes of all wards casted for election of the President of the Municipal Council. The moment the application was made, the Member of Legislative Assembly, belonging to Congress Party, came in the counting room and even when he was stopped by the security persons, the said M.L.A. entered in the room, all the election agents of all candidates were asked to leave the room and stating that a crowd of five thousand people was standing outside the counting room and anything may happen, therefore, the Election Officer should declare the result of election, under pressure the result of election was declared. In Paragraph 7 of the grounds of Election Petition, it is categorically contended that the application made by the election agent of the respondent No. 2 in the Election Petition was not considered by the Election Officer in that circumstances and ignoring his objection, the results were declared. In ground para 8 of the Election Petition, it is categorically said that the valid votes secured by the respondent No. 2 in the Election Petition were mingled with the votes secured by other candidates on account of which the entire counting of the votes was vitiated and this has resulted in affecting the result, of the election of the President of the Municipal Council. ( 12. ) AFTER examining these allegations made in the writ petition, this Court is satisfied that there were material facts alleged in the Election Petition for initiating trial of the Election Petition. What more particular was needed which is required to be given at the initial stage, is not established by any contentions of the petitioner herein in the application filed by her before the Election Tribunal. Merely saying that this cannot be replied to, is not enough to consider whether material particulars are stated or not in the Election Petition. As has been held by the Apex Court in several cases, more particularly, in the case of Virendra Nath Gautam (supra), the distinction is to be drawn between the material facts and the particulars. Merely saying that this cannot be replied to, is not enough to consider whether material particulars are stated or not in the Election Petition. As has been held by the Apex Court in several cases, more particularly, in the case of Virendra Nath Gautam (supra), the distinction is to be drawn between the material facts and the particulars. As has been categorically held, the particulars are to be proved by adducing evidence and this will be the burden on the election petitioner to prove such allegations, which have been made in the Election Petition. Unless the evidence is led, the statements of witnesses are recorded, they are cross-examined efficiently it cannot be said that there were lack of particulars of constituting a cause of action for filing Election Petition against a returned candidate. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Election Tribunal was right in rejecting the application of the petitioner for dismissal of the Election Petition at the threshold. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed but with no order as to cost. Writ Petition No. 18161/2010 ( 13. ) NOW consideration is to be done with respect to W. P. No. 18161/2010 filed by the election-petitioner against the order passed in his case rejecting his application for amendment in the election petition. ( 14. ) THE fact as to how the election petition was required to be filed has already been considered in the foregoing paras of the order passed today in the connected writ petition, which too is being decided by this order. THE relief, which was claimed by the petitioner in the election petition, was to the effect that recounting of all the votes secured by the respondents No. 1 to 5 in the election petition be done and on the basis of recounting of the votes, the result of the election be declared. As has been pointed out, all the candidates to the election have been made party in the election petition as respondents and a prayer is concisely made for recounting of the votes and then declaration of the result. As has been pointed out, all the candidates to the election have been made party in the election petition as respondents and a prayer is concisely made for recounting of the votes and then declaration of the result. THE consequence of the recounting of the votes would be either affirming the result of the returned candidate or its rejection in case it is found that counting of the votes was not rightly done by the Returning Officer and illegally the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 18161/2010 was declared elected on the post of President of Municipal Council, Khurai. THErefore, in the opinion of this Court, there was no lacuna created in making such a prayer by the election-petitioner. Further, it was rightly held by the Election Tribunal that a relief is to be co-related to the limitation provided under the statute for such a relief. THE election-petitioner was required to be cautious of claiming the relief. If such an amendment is allowed, it will mean as if such a relief was claimed at the initial stage when the election petition was filed. This being so, such a relief cannot be added at a belated stage after the expiry of the limitation prescribed under the statute for claiming such a relief. That apart, the amended provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force, categorically provides that the pleadings can be amended with respect to subsequent events. After the commencement of the trial, pleadings which otherwise were required to be made at the initial stage, cannot be permitted to be incorporated. THE only aspect required is to see whether any prejudice is caused to the other side or not. This being so, in the considered opinion of this Court, there was no need of making such an amendment in the relief clause. The Election Tribunal was right in rejecting the application for amendment made by the election-petitioner. No interference in the order of the Election Tribunal is called for in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 15. ) ACCORDINGLY, Writ Petition No. 18161/2010 is also dismissed but with no order as to cost. Petition dismissed.