# Prem Pal Singh v. Prem Pal Singh Dhangar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1584
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-30
- **Case number:** Election Petition No. 11 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-pal-singh-v-prem-pal-singh-dhangar-ors-54618
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

People Act, 1951-Sections 80 & 81 - The
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order VI
Rule 17 - Order VII Rule 11---Election
petition filed questioning the election
of
respondent on the ground that he does not
belong to Scheduled Castes community and is
from Other Backward Caste---In an election
petition, material facts have to be set out in the
petition
under
Section
83(1)(a)
and
no
amendment can be carried out. The same
applies with the pleading of a suit where the
material fact has to be disclosed in view of Rule
2 of Order VI in the pleading by a party relying
for his claim or defence---The amendment
application moved by petitioner cannot be
allowed as it introduces totally a new case---Non
disclosure of material fact is an incurable defect
which leads to an inevitable conclusion that an
election petition is not maintainable---The
present case is not for bringing on record
material particulars which have been left while
filing the election petition, but through proposed
amendment, material facts are being brought on
record which goes to the root of the case and
cannot be allowed at this stage---As the
petitioner has not disclosed the material facts in
his
election
petition
and
had
tried
to
subsequently get the election petition amended,
the application moved by respondent no. 1
under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC for dismissing
the election petition for non disclosure of cause
of action stands allowed.

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,886 of 49,256. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39886 for what follows._

1584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "23.
From
perusal
of
the
aforesaid judgements of the Apex Court, it
is now well settled that on the death of the
complainant, under Section 256(2) Cr.P.C.
cannot
ipso
facto
bring
about
the
termination of the criminal proceeding and
in that case the learned Magistrate is
authorised to exercise his power under
Section 302 Cr.P.C by allowing any person
or prosecution agency for conducting of the
criminal case merely on the death of the
complainant, the complaint filed by him
cannot be dismissed nor the accused
acquitted or discharged under Section 256
or 258 Cr.P.C."

17. The Kerala High Court, in the
case of Laly Thomas versus State of
Kerla and others; 2010 SCC Online
KER 4988, held that a reading of Section
256 of Code itself makes it clear that the
case is proceeded with even after death of
complainant, only because the Magistrate
forms
an
opinion
that
complainant's
attendance is not necessary and attendance
of the complainant is dispensed with.
Therefore, mere Will be no justification in
acquitting accused under Section 256(1) of
the Code on the ground that the
complainant is absent.

18. Adverting to the facts of the
present case, the complaint has been filed
on the ground that the petitioner, showing
himself to be the son after death of the
husband of the complainant, got his name
recorded in the revenue records as heir,
whereas they had no issue and the
accused/petitioner along with his two
brothers is son of Bechai. It is not in
dispute that the Will was executed by the
complainant Atwari in favour of the
respondent no.2 in regard to the property,
on which the name had been got recorded
by the petitioner fraudulently as alleged
during pendency of the application of the
complainant for mutation before the
Consolidation Officer and after filing of the
application
by
the
complainant,
the
proceedings in consolidation are going on
and the respondent no.2 is in possession of
the property in dispute of the complainant
on the basis of Will. Thus, he is her legal
representative and entitled for the propertyin-dispute on the basis of Will and entitled
to continue with the proceedings on behalf
of the complainant.

19. In view of above, learned
courts below have
rightly
and
in
accordance
with
law
passed
the
impugned orders and permitted to the
petitioner to pursue/ do pairvi of the
proceedings of complaint case after
death
of
complainant
Atwari.
The
impugned orders have been passed in
accordance with law by reasoned and
speaking orders, which does not call for
any interference by this Court. The
petition is misconceived and lacks merit.

20. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1584
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Election Petition No. 11 of 2022

Prem Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Prem Pal Singh Dhangar & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Virendra Singh
5 All. Prem Pal Singh Vs. Prem Pal Singh Dhangar & Ors.
1585
Counsel for the Respondents:
Adya Prasad Tewari, Jai Prakash Rao,
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari

Election Petition - The Representation of
People Act, 1951-Sections 80 & 81 - The
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order VI
Rule 17 - Order VII Rule 11---Election
petition filed questioning the election
of
respondent on the ground that he does not
belong to Scheduled Castes community and is
from Other Backward Caste---In an election
petition, material facts have to be set out in the
petition
under
Section
83(1)(a)
and
no
amendment can be carried out. The same
applies with the pleading of a suit where the
material fact has to be disclosed in view of Rule
2 of Order VI in the pleading by a party relying
for his claim or defence---The amendment
application moved by petitioner cannot be
allowed as it introduces totally a new case---Non
disclosure of material fact is an incurable defect
which leads to an inevitable conclusion that an
election petition is not maintainable---The
present case is not for bringing on record
material particulars which have been left while
filing the election petition, but through proposed
amendment, material facts are being brought on
record which goes to the root of the case and
cannot be allowed at this stage---As the
petitioner has not disclosed the material facts in
his
election
petition
and
had
tried
to
subsequently get the election petition amended,
the application moved by respondent no. 1
under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC for dismissing
the election petition for non disclosure of cause
of action stands allowed.

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs A. Santhana Kumar
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398.

2. Anita Devi Chaurasiya Vs St. of U.P., Writ-C
No. 22128 of 2023

3. Udhav Singh Vs Madhav Rao Scindia, (1977)
1 SCC 511

4.
L.R.
Shivaramagowda
Vs
T.M.
Chandrashekar, (1999) 1 SCC 666

5. H.D. Revanna Vs G. Puttaswamy Gowda,
(1999) 2 SCC 217

6. Virender Nath Gautam Vs Satpal Singh,
(2007) 3 SCC 617

7. Jitu Patnaik Vs Sanatan Mohakud & ors.,
(2012) 4 SCC 194

8. Samant N. Balkrishna Vs George Fernandez,
(1969) 3 SCC 238

9. Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs Asstt. Charity
Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. This election petition filed under
Section 80/81 of The Representation of
People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called as
"the Act of 1951") questions the election of
one Prem Pal Singh Dhangar, respondent
no. 1, to U.P. Legislative Assembly from
Tundla Constituency No. 95 (reserved for
Scheduled Castes).

2. This election petition was
nominated to this Court by orders of
Hon'ble
The
Chief
Justice
dated
28.08.2023 exercising power under subsection (2) of Section 80-A of the Act of
1951.

3. During pendency of election
petition,
election
petitioner
filed
an
amendment application Paper No. A-34,
while the respondent no. 1 filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
Paper No. A-28 for dismissing election
petition as it does not disclose the cause of
action for declaring the election to be void.
Both the applications were heard together
1586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and are being decided by a common order
with the consent of counsel for the parties.

4. Facts, leading to filing of
election petition, are that the election for
U.P. Legislative Assembly was announced
by Election Commission in the month of
January, 2022. 25.01.2022 was the date of
filing nomination. The last date for filing
nomination was 01.02.2022. Scrutiny of
nomination papers was held on 02.01.2022,
while the last date of withdrawal of
candidature was 04.02.2022.

5. The votes were polled on
20.02.2022, while the counting of votes
was held on 10.03.2022 and result was
declared on the same day i.e. 10.03.2022.
Respondent no. 1, Prem Pal Singh Dhangar
stood elected from Tundla Constituency
No. 95 by a margin of 47631 votes. The
present election petition has been filed by
petitioner questioning the election of
respondent no. 1 on the ground that he does
not belong to Scheduled Castes community
and
is
Gaderia/Pal/Baghel
which
is
recognised as Other Backward Caste in
State of U.P.

6. The material statement of facts
made in election petition are as under:-

 "1. That, the petitioner is a
Member of Tundla Constituency No.95
(who is reserved for Scheduled Caste) and
Shri Prem Pal Singh Dhangar (respondent
no.1), who was declared elected from a
Bhartiya Janta Party candidate. That the
polling of the said assembly Constituency
No.95 was held on 20.02.2022 and
counting took place on 10.03.2022. In this
regard, a true copy of the Final Result
dated
10.03.2022
is
being
enclosed
herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to
this petition.
 2. That, the detailed scheme of
2022 General Elections are as following;-
 Date of Nomination- 25.01.2022
 Last
Date
of
Making
Nominations-01.02.2022
 Scrutiny
of
Nominations02.01.2022
 Withdrawal of candidature -
04.02.2022
Date of Poll -20.02.2022
 Date of Counting-10.03.2022
 Date of declaration of Result10.03.2022
 3. That, on the last mentioned
date 10.03.2022, the Result of the said
election was declared by the Returning
Officer and the respondent no.1 was
declared to be elected with a lead of 47631
votes to the Legislative Assembly from
Tundla Constituency No.95 (reserved for
Scheduled Caste).

4. That, it is pertinent to mention
here that the Tundla Constituency No.95 is
reserved for the Scheduled Castes; and the
respondent no.1 who admittedly belongs to
Gaderia/Pal/Baghel, which is recognized
as Other Backward Caste in the State of
U.P.

5. That, being member of Other
Backward Castes, the candidature of
respondent no.1 for Tundla Constituency
No.95 (reserved for Scheduled Caste) was
ab-initio null and void.

6.
That,
the
election
of
respondent no.1-Mr. Prem Pal Singh
Dhangar is void and liable to be set-aside
by this Hon'ble Court, because the Tundla
Constituency No.95 is reserved for the
Scheduled Caste only, inter alia, on the
following grounds;-"

7. After the material facts the
petitioner had raised grounds for filing
election petition. It was during the
pendency of the election petition that an
5 All. Prem Pal Singh Vs. Prem Pal Singh Dhangar & Ors.
1587
amendment application was moved along
with an affidavit for amending the election
petition and prayer was made for adding
material facts. The amendment application
was dismissed on 03.03.2025 on the ground
that there was no disclosure in the
amendment
application
as
to
the
amendment sought by petitioner, while the
entire narration of the facts was in the
affidavit accompanying the amendment
application.

8. The petitioner has preferred the
second
amendment
application
for
amending the election petition and adding
paragraph nos. 5/1 to 5/8 after paragraph
no. 5, which are as under:-

 "5/1. That the respondent no.1
admittedly belongs to Gaderia (गडेररया)
caste, as he is claiming that his caste is
Gaderia Dhangar (गडेररया िनगर); but no caste
namely Gaderia Dhangar (गडेररया िनगर) is
included in the Presidential List, 1950
given in the Constitution Scheduled Caste
Order, 1950.

5/2. That the respondent no.1
belongs to Gaderia (गडेररया) caste, which has
included in the list of Other Backward
Caste in the Schedules I and Sl. No. 19 of
U.P.Public Service (Reservation of SC/ST
and OBC Classes) Act, 1994.

5/3. That the Gazette of India
published on 23.11.1997 in the regards of
the case, wherein the English Version
Dhangar and Hindi Version (िांगड) is
mentioned at Sl. No.27.

5/4. That on 25.03.2019, the
Chief
Secretary,
Social
Welfare
Department, U.P. at Lucknow issued a
Notification in question of other than
SC/ST Community as Dhangar, Gaderia,
Pal and Hindu Julaha, Koli, Kabeerpanthi
Bunker for issuing the caste certificate,
wherein it has specifically been stated that
there is no any Caste as Dhanger (िनगर), it
is correct name as Dhangar (िांगड)

5/5. That the petitioner moved a
R.T.I. before the Government of India in
question of the caste of Dhanger (िनगर) and
Dhangar (िांगड), then a Reply was given by
the
Government
of
India,
National
Commission
of
Scheduled
Caste
on
20.09.2017, wherein it has specifically
been mentioned that the Government of
Uttar Pradesh to follow the Government of
India's Order i.e. Presidential Order, 1950
and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 on
Dhangar (िांगड) caste at Serial No.27 as
issued in Hindi & English version of the
notification of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act,
1976.

5/6. That this Hon'ble Court in a
Public Interest Litigation No. 400 of 2019,
passed an order on 19.4.2019, staying all
impugned
Government
Orders
dated
24.10.2013, 16.12.2016 and 26.03.2018.

5/7 That respondent no. 1 is
permanent resident of Village-Badariya
Mazra Rarpatti, Tehsil-Sadar, DistrictEtah and he got his basic education from
Primary School Badariya and his name
reflected at serial no.328 and sub-caste
showing
as
Baghel
and
thereafter
respondent
no.1
got
education
from
Avinashi Sahai Arya Inter College, Etah
from the year 1985-87 in Class-11 and 12,
in records showing the sub-caste as
Gadariya.

5/8 That in family register of
respondent no.1 his sub-caste mentioned as
Gadariya and all other blood relatives of
respondent no.1 also belongs to Baghel and
Gadariya/Baghel
belongs
to
Other
Backward
Caste
(OBC)
and
thus
respondent no.1 who is Dhangarधििर) is not
1588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
belongs to Scheduled Caste and he belongs
to OBC."

9.
This
application
has
been
opposed by respondent on the ground that
this will change the nature of the election
petition and no material facts can be added
after the election petition has been filed and
only material particulars could be added.

10. An application being Paper No.
A-28 has been preferred by respondent no.
1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for
dismissing the election petition on the
ground that incomplete material facts have
been stated, thus, no cause of action has
been made out and election petition should
be dismissed. It is further averred that
election petition does not contain of
concise statement of material fact on which
petitioner is relying upon for establishing
cause of action and the same deserves to be
dismissed in view of Clause (a) of Rule 11
of Order VII CPC.

11. Sri Virendra Singh, learned
counsel
for
the
election
petitioner
submitted that by proposed amendment, no
new fact is being added and already in the
grounds of election petition, the facts which
are being brought on record have already
been stated. By amending the election
petition, the nature of election petition
would not change and it is a curable defect,
more so non compliance of requirement of
Section 83(1)(a) of the Act of 1951 is not
fatal. Further, Section 86(1) provides that
an election petition can be dismissed for
non compliance of Section 81, 82 or 117.
Defect
in
an
election
petition
that
constitutes non compliance with Section 83
has been held to be a curable defect.

12. Reliance has been placed upon
decision of Apex Court rendered in case of
T. Phungzathang vs. Hangkhanlian,
(2001) 8 SCC 358; Umesh Challiyill vs.
K.P. Rajendran, (2008) 11 SCC 740;
Ponnala
Lakshmaiah
vs.
Kommuri
Pratap Reddy, (2012) 7 SCC 788 and A.
Manju vs. Prajwal Revanna, (2022) 3
SCC 269. Reliance has also been placed
upon decision rendered in case of Raj
Narain vs. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi,
AIR 1972 SC 1302.

13.
Sri A.P. Tewari,
learned
counsel appearing for respondent no. 1
submitted that there is a difference between
"material facts" and "material particulars".
In an election petition, there must be a
concise statement of material facts. Non
disclosure of material fact is fatal to the
election petition and defect cannot be
cured. According to him, if in the election
petition
material
fact
has
not
been
disclosed, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.

14. He has relied upon the decision
of this Court rendered in case of Anita
Devi Chaurasiya vs. State of U.P., WritC No. 22128 of 2023, decided on
17.01.2024; judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Ram Sewak Yadav vs.
Hussain Kamil Kidwai, AIR 1964 SC
1249 and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A.
Santhana Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
398.

15. I have heard respective counsel
for
the
parties
on
the
amendment
application as well as the application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

16. Before adverting to decide the
applications moved by respective parties, a
cursory glance of some of the provisions of
the
Act
of
1951
is
necessary
for
adjudicating the matter.
5 All. Prem Pal Singh Vs. Prem Pal Singh Dhangar & Ors.
1589
17. Chapter II of Part VI of the Act
of 1951 deals with presentation of election
petitions to High Court. Section 80
provides that no election shall be called in
question except by an election petition.
Section 80A provides for High Court to try
election petitions. Section 81 provides for
presentation of election petition on one or
more grounds specified in sub-section (1)
of Section 100 and Section 101 by any
candidate at such election or any elector
within 45 days from the date of election of
returned candidate. Relevant Section 81 is
extracted hereasunder:-

"81. Presentation of petitions.-
(1) An election petition calling in question
any election may be presented on one or
more of the grounds specified in [subsection (1)] 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, or if
there are more than one returned candidate
at the election and the dates of their
election are different, the later of those two
dates].

Explanation.-In this sub-section,
"elector" means a person who was entitled
to vote at the election to which the election
petition relates, whether he has voted at
such election or not.
[* * * * * ]

[(3) Every election petition shall
be accompanied by as many copies thereof
as there are respondents mentioned in the
petition [***], and every such copy shall
be attested by the petitioner under his own
signature to be a true copy of the
petition.]"

18. Section 82 provides for person
to be joined as parties in the election
petition. The aforesaid section is extracted
hereasunder:-

 "[82. Parties to the petition.-A
petitioner shall join as respondents to his
petition-

(a) where the petitioner, in
addition to claiming 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.]"

19.
Section
83
provides
for
contents
of
election
petition
and
enumerates
what
material
facts
and
particulars have to be disclosed in the
petition questioning an election. Relevant
Section 83 is extracted hereasunder:-

"[83. Contents of petition.-(1)
An election petition-

(a) shall contain a concise
statement of the material facts on which the
petitioner relies;

(b) shall set forth full particulars
of any corrupt practice that the petitioner
alleges, including as full a statement as
possible of the names of the parties alleged
to have committed such corrupt practice
and the date and place of the commission
of each such practice; and

(c) shall be signed by the
petitioner and verified in the manner laid
down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 of 1908) for the verification of
pleadings:
1590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

[Provided
that
where
the
petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the
petition shall also be accompanied by an
affidavit in the prescribed form in support
of the allegation of such corrupt practice
and the particulars thereof.]

(2) Any schedule or annexure to
the petition shall also be signed by the
petitioner and verified in the same manner
as the petition]."

20. Chapter III of Part VI of the
Act of 1951 deals with trial of election
petition. After the election petition is filed
the procedure is laid down in Chapter III
for the trial of such election petition.

21. Section 86 provides for trial of
election petition. Sub-section (1) provides
for dismissal of an election petition which
does not comply with provisions of Section
81 or Section 82 or Section 117. Subsection (5) provides that the High Court
may, upon such terms as to costs and
otherwise as it may deem fit, allow the
particulars of any corrupt practice alleged
in the petition to be amended or amplified.
Relevant parts of Section 86 are extracted
hereasunder:-

"[86.
Trial
of
election
petitions.-(1) The High Court shall
dismiss an election petition which does not
comply with the provisions of section 81 or
section 82 or section 117.

Explanation.-An order of the
High Court dismissing an election petition
under this sub-section shall be deemed to
be an order made under clause (a) of
section 98.

(2) ***

(3) ***

(4) ***

(5) The High Court may, upon
such terms as to costs and otherwise as it
may deem fit, allow the particulars of any
corrupt practice alleged in the petition to
be amended or amplified in such manner as
may in its opinion be necessary for
ensuring a fair and effective trial of the
petition, but shall not allow any amendment
of the petition which will have the effect of
introducing particulars
of
a
corrupt
practice not previously alleged in the
petition.

(6)***

(7)***"

22.
Section
87
provides
for
procedure before the Court. It lays down
that subject to the provisions of the Act and
rules made thereunder, every election
petition shall be tried by the Court, as
nearly as may be, in accordance with the
procedure applicable under the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits,
meaning thereby that provisions of CPC are
applicable to trial of election petition.

23. From the reading of Chapter II
and Chapter III of Part VI of the Act of
1951, it clearly culls out that an election
petition questioned by any candidate or any
elector has to be presented under Section
81 on the grounds enumerated under
Section 100 and 101. Section 82 relates to
the parties to be joined in the election
petition by petitioner therein.

24.
Section
83
is
of
great
importance as it clearly lays down the
contents of an election petition. Sub-section
(1)(a) is a mandatory provision which
envisages that an election petition shall
contain a concise statement of material
facts on which petitioner relies. While subsection (1)(b) provides for setting forth full
particulars of any corrupt practice that the
petitioner alleges, including full statement
as possible of the names of the parties
5 All. Prem Pal Singh Vs. Prem Pal Singh Dhangar & Ors.
1591
alleged to have committed such corrupt
practice.

25. Thus, Section 83 is divided into
two parts consisting of material facts to be
disclosed in election petition under subsection (1)(a) while the material particulars
to be disclosed under sub-section (1)(b).
There is a distinction between the two
words "material facts" and "material
particulars".

26. In Udhav Singh vs. Madhav
Rao Scindia, (1977) 1 SCC 511, the
Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the
distinction between the two words held as
under:-

"42. All the primary facts which
must be proved at the trial by a party to
establish the existence of a cause of action
or his defence, are "material facts". In the
context of a charge of corrupt practice,
"material facts" would mean all the basic
facts constituting the ingredients of the
particular corrupt practice alleged, which
the petitioner is bound to substantiate
before he can succeed on that charge.
Whether
in
an
election-petition,
a
particular fact is material or not, and as
such required to be pleaded is a question
which depends on the nature of the charge
levelled, the ground relied upon and the
special circumstances of the case. In short,
all those facts which are essential to clothe
the petitioner with a complete cause of
action, are "material facts" which must be
pleaded, and failure to plead even a single
material fact amounts to disobedience of
the mandate of Section 83(1)(a).

43. "Particulars", on the other
hand, are "the details of the case set up by
the party". "Material particulars" within
the contemplation of clause (b) of Section
83(1) would therefore mean all the details
which are necessary to amplify, refine and
embellish
the
material
facts
already
pleaded in the petition in compliance with
the
requirements
of
clause
(a).
"Particulars"
serve
the
purpose
of
finishing touches to the basic contours of a
picture already drawn, to make it full, more
detailed and more informative.

44.
The
distinction
between
"material
facts"
and
"material
particulars" was pointed out by this Court
in several cases, three of which have been
cited at the Bar. It is not necessary to refer
to all of them. It will be sufficient to close
the discussion by extracting what A.N. Ray,
J. (as he then was) said on this point in
Hardwari Lal case: [SCC p. 220, para 20]

"It is therefore vital that the
corrupt practice charged against the
respondent should be a full and complete
statement of material facts to clothe the
petitioner with a complete cause of action
and to give an equal and full opportunity to
the respondent to meet the case and to
defend the charges. Merely, alleging that
the respondent obtained or procured or
attempted to obtain or procure assistance
are extracting words from the statute which
will have no meaning unless and until facts
are stated to show what that assistance is
and how the prospect of election is
furthered by such assistance. In the present
case, it was not even alleged that the
assistance obtained or procured was other
than the giving of vote. It was said by
Counsel for the respondent that because
the statute did not render the giving of vote
a
corrupt
practice
the
words
'any
assistance' were full statement of material
fact. The submission is fallacious for the
simple
reason
that
the
manner
of
assistance, the measure of assistance are
all various aspects of fact to clothe the
petition with a cause of action which will
call for an answer. Material facts are facts
1592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which if established would give the
petitioner the relief asked for. If the
respondent had not appeared, could the
court have given a verdict in favour of the
election petitioner. The answer is in the
negative because the allegations in the
petition did not disclose any cause of
action."

27. In L.R. Shivaramagowda vs.
T.M. Chandrashekar, (1999) 1 SCC 666,
the Supreme Court again reiterated that
election petitioner has to plead that result of
election insofar as it concerned the returned
candidate had been materially affected by
the alleged non-compliance with the
provisions of the Act and Rules. The Court
also stressed importance of pleading in an
election petition and distinction between
"material facts" and "material particulars".
Relevant paragraph 10 and 11 are extracted
hereasunder:-

 "10. That apart, it is rightly
pointed out by the appellant's counsel that
in order to declare an election to be void
under Section 100(1)(d)(iv), it is absolutely
necessary for the election petitioner to
plead that the result of the election insofar
as it concerned the returned candidate had
been materially affected by the alleged noncompliance with the provisions of the Act or
of the Rules. We have already extracted para
39 of the election petition which is the only
relevant paragraph. One will search in vain
for an averment in that paragraph that the
appellant had spent for the election an
amount exceeding the prescribed limit or that
the result of the election was materially
affected by the failure of the appellant to give
true and correct accounts of expenditure. In
the absence of either averment, it was not
open to the appellant to adduce evidence to
that effect. It cannot be denied that the two
matters referred to above are material facts
which ought to find a place in an election
petition if the election is sought to be set
aside on the basis of such facts.

11. This Court has repeatedly
stressed the importance of pleadings in an
election petition and pointed out the
difference between "material facts" and
"material particulars". While the failure to
plead material facts is fatal to the election
petition and no amendment of the pleading
could be allowed to introduce such material
facts after the time-limit prescribed for filing
the election petition, the absence of material
particulars can be cured at a later stage by
an appropriate amendment. In Balwan Singh
v. Lakshmi Narain [AIR 1960 SC 770 :
(1960) 3 SCR 91] the Constitution Bench
held that an election petition was not liable to
be dismissed in limine merely because full
particulars of corrupt practice alleged were
not set out. On the facts of the case, the Court
found that the alleged corrupt practice of
hiring a vehicle for the conveyance of the
voters to the polling station was sufficiently
set out in the pleading. The Court pointed out
that the corrupt practice being hiring or
procuring of the vehicle for the conveyance of
the electors, if full particulars of conveying
by a vehicle of electors to or from any polling
stations were given, Section 83 was duly
complied with, even if the particulars of the
contract of hiring, as distinguished from the
fact of hiring were not given."

28. In H.D. Revanna vs. G.
Puttaswamy Gowda, (1999) 2 SCC 217,
the Apex Court pointed out the distinction
between
the
"material
facts"
and
"particulars". Relevant paragraph 23 is
extracted hereasunder:-

"23. This Court has repeatedly
pointed
out
the
distinction
between
"material facts" and "particulars". Insofar
as "material facts" are concerned, this
5 All. Prem Pal Singh Vs. Prem Pal Singh Dhangar & Ors.
1593
Court has held that they should be fully set
out in the election petition and if any fact is
not set out, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to adduce the evidence relating
thereto later; nor will he be permitted to
amend the petition after expiry of the
period of limitation prescribed for an
election petition. As regards particulars,
the consistent view expressed by this Court
is that the petition cannot be dismissed in
limine for want of particulars and if the
court finds that particulars are necessary,
an opportunity should be given to the
petitioner to amend the petition and include
the particulars. The Constitution Bench in
Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain [AIR
1960 SC 770 : (1960) 3 SCR 91] held that
an election petition was not liable to be
dismissed in limine merely because full
particulars of a corrupt practice alleged
were not set out. It was observed that if an
objection was taken and the tribunal was of
the view that particulars had not been set
out, the petitioner had to be given an
opportunity to amend or amplify the
particulars and that it was only in the event
of non-compliance with the order to supply
the particulars, the charge could be struck
out."

29. In Virender Nath Gautam vs.
Satpal Singh, (2007) 3 SCC 617, the Apex
Court again had the occasion to consider
the difference between "material facts" and
"particulars". The Hon'ble Court further
held that election petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground as the case is
covered by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
Section 83 of the Act of 1951 read with
clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC.
Relevant paragraphs 30, 31, 34 and 35 are
extracted hereasunder:-

"30. All material facts, therefore,
in accordance with the provisions of the
Act, have to be set out in the election
petition. If the material facts are not stated
in a petition, it is liable to be dismissed on
that ground as the case would be covered
by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
83 of the Act read with clause (a) of Rule
11 of Order 7 of the Code.

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.

34.
A
distinction
between
"material
facts"
and
"particulars",
however,
must
not
be
overlooked.
"Material facts" are primary or basic facts
which must be pleaded by the plaintiff or by
the defendant in support of the case set up
by him either to prove his cause of action
or defence. "Particulars", on the other
hand, are details in support of material
facts pleaded by the party. They amplify,
refine and embellish material facts by
giving distinctive touch to the basic
contours of a picture already drawn so as
1594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to make it full, more clear and more
informative. "Particulars" thus ensure
conduct of fair trial and would not take the
opposite party by surprise.

35. All "material facts" must be
pleaded by the party in support of the case
set up by him. Since the object and purpose
is to enable the opposite party to know the
case he has to meet with, in the absence of
pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead
evidence. Failure to state even a single
material fact, hence, will entail dismissal of
the suit or petition. Particulars, on the
other hand, are the details of the case
which is in the nature of evidence a party
would be leading at the time of trial."

30. In Jitu Patnaik vs. Sanatan
Mohakud and others, (2012) 4 SCC 194,
the Apex Court again had the occasion to
consider the merit of Section 83(1) and
100(1)(d) of the Act of 1951 and relying
upon its earlier decision rendered in case of
Samant
N.
Balkrishna
vs.
George
Fernandez, (1969) 3 SCC 238 held that
matter of non disclosure of material facts in
the election petition would lead to an
incomplete cause of action and statement of
claim becomes bad.

31. In Kanimozhi Karunanidhi
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court again had
the occasion to consider the distinction
between "material facts" and "particulars"
and the Court relying upon its earlier
decision enunciated the legal position and
summed up the case and held as under:-

"28.
The
legal
position
enunciated in afore-stated cases may be
summed up as under:-

i. Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act,
1951 mandates that an Election petition
shall contain a concise statement of
material facts on which the petitioner
relies. If material facts are not stated in an
Election petition, the same is liable to be
dismissed on that ground alone, as the case
would be covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11
of Order 7 of the Code.

ii. The material facts must be
such facts as would afford a basis for the
allegations made in the petition and would
constitute the cause of action, that is every
fact which it would be necessary for the
plaintiff/petitioner to prove, if traversed in
order to support his right to the judgement
of court. Omission of a single material fact
would lead to an incomplete cause of
action and the statement of plaint would
become bad.

iii. Material facts mean the entire
bundle of facts which would constitute a
complete cause of action. Material facts
would include positive statement of facts as
also positive averment of a negative fact, if
necessary.

iv. In order to get an election
declared
as
void
under
Section
100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election
petitioner must aver that on account of
non-compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution or of the Act or any rules or
orders made under the Act, the result of the
election, in so far as it concerned the
returned
candidate,
was
materially
affected.

v. The Election petition is a
serious matter and it cannot be treated
lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it
given to a person who uses it as a handle
for vexatious purpose.

vi. An Election petition can be
summarily dismissed on the omission of a
single
material
fact
leading
to
an
incomplete cause of action, or omission to
contain a concise statement of material
facts on which the petitioner relies for
establishing a cause of action, in exercise
of the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11
5 All. Prem Pal Singh Vs. Prem Pal Singh Dhangar & Ors.
1595
of Order VII CPC read with the mandatory
requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the
RP Act."

32. This Court in case of Anita Devi
Chaurasiya (supra) had also relying upon
the earlier decision of Apex Court had held
that there was a difference between
"material facts" and "material particulars".
Omission to the said material fact was fatal
to the election petition.

33. Now, turning to order VI of CPC
which is pleadings generally. Rule 1 of
Order VI defines "pleading" which means
plaint or written statement. Rule 2 provides
for pleading to state material facts and not
evidence. Thus, every pleading either it is a
plaint or a written statement has to disclose
material facts on which the party pleading
relies for his claim or defence, as the cases
may be, but not evidence by which they are
proved. Rule 2 is extracted hereasunder:-

"2. Pleading to state material
facts
and
not
evidence.-(1)
Every
pleading shall contain, and contain only, a
statement in a concise form of the material
facts on which the party pleading relies for
his claim or defence, as the case may be,
but not the evidence by which they are to be
proved.

(2) Every pleading shall, when
necessary, be divided into paragraphs,
numbered consecutively, each allegation
being, so far as is convenient, contained in
a separate paragraph.

(3) Dates, sums and numbers
shall be expressed in a pleading in figures
as well as in words.]"

34. Similarly, Rule 4 provides that
in all cases in which party pleading relies
on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of
trust, wilful default, or undue influence,
and in all other cases in which particulars
may be necessary beyond such as they are
exemplified
in
the
forms
aforesaid,
particulars will be stated in the pleading.
Rule 4 is extracted hereasunder:-

"4. Particulars to be given where
necessary.-In all cases in which the party
pleading relies on any misrepresentation,
fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or
undue influence, and in all other cases in
which particulars may be necessary beyond
such as are exemplified in the forms
aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items
if necessary) shall be stated in the
pleading."

35. Thus, from the reading of Rule
2 and Rule 4 of Order VI, it is clear that
there is a distinction between "material
facts" and "particulars". On the one hand
words "material facts" show that the facts
necessary to formulate a complete cause of
action must be stated, and any omission of
a single material fact would lead to an
incomplete cause of action or plaint
becomes bad.

36. On the contrary, particular is to
present as full a picture of the cause of
action with such further information in
detail as to make the opposite party
understand the case he will have to meet. In
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Asstt. Charity
Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137, the Hon'ble
Apex Court while dealing with Order VI
Rule 2(1) laid distinction between "material
facts" and "material particulars" and held
as under:-

"19. Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the
Code states the basic and cardinal rule of
pleadings and declares that the pleading
has to state material facts and not the
evidence. It mandates that every pleading
1596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shall contain, and contain only, a statement
in a concise form of the material facts on
which the party pleading relies for his
claim or defence, as the case may be, but
not the evidence by which they are to be
proved.

20. There is distinction between
"material facts" and "particulars". The
words "material facts" show that the facts
necessary to formulate a complete cause of
action must be stated.