# HARDW ARI LAL v. KANWAL SINGH

- **Citation:** [1972] 2 S.C.R. 742
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-12-01
- **Case number:** Election Petition No. I . Of 1970
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover, A. N. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hardw-ari-lal-v-kanwal-singh-5539
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Representation of the People Act. 1951 s. 123(1)-Corrupt practice
of obtainini assistance etc. from a Govern~ent servant-What constitutes
-When material particulars aFe not supplied the petition
must be dismissed.
The appellant was declared elected to the Hary'J.na Legislative Assembly from )lahadurgarh
constituency.
The respondent challenged
the
election on various grounds. In para 16 of the election petition it was
alleged that the appellant was guilty of the corrupt pmctice mentioned in
s. 123 (7) .of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 inasmuch as he
had wfitten letters to six Government servants seeking their assistance in
tie election. The High Court framed Issue No. 5 to deal with this allegation. The appellant applied to the High Court for further particulars to be
supplied by the respondent in support of his allegations in para 16 but the
application was rejected. The High Court held the appellant guilty of the
said corrupt practice and declared his election void. The appellant appealed
to this Court by special leave.
The question that fell for
consideration
was whether the petition was not maintainable in view of the appellant's
contention that cnaterial particulars in support of the allegation of corrupt
practice which was the subject-matter of Issue
No. 5 had not been
supplied.
HELD : The different expressions used in s. 123(7). namely, obtaining, ·procuring', 'abetting· or atten1pting to obtain or procure are various
forms of corrypt practice. It has to be found as to whether the allegation
of obtaining assistance amounts to an allegation of fact. It is well settled
that general expressions liKe "fraudulently', 'negligently' or 'maliciously' in
pleading; do not amount to allegations of fact. [746 HJ
Jn the present t\ase the allegations in para 16 of the election petition
did. not amount to any statement of material fact of corrupt practice. ll
was not stated a_s to what kind or form of assistance was obtained or procured or attempted to be obtai-ned or procured.
It was not stated from
whom the particular -type --of assistance was obtained or attempted to be
obtained or Jlrocured.
It was not stated in what
manner
the
assistance was for the furtherance of the prospect of the election.
The gravemen of the chaige of coirupt practic.! is obtaining or attempting to obtain
or procure any ao;;sistance other than the giving of a vote.
In the absence
of any suggestion as to w.hat the assistance was the election petition was
lacking in the most vital and essential material fact to furnish a cause of
action.
It did not ~mount to an election petition on grounds mentioned
;n '
123(7) of the Act and was therefore liable to be dismissed. [750
F-G]
The fact that s. 83 under which material particulars are required to be
supplied is not pientioned in s. 86 as one of the sections non-compliance
with which must result in dismissal of the petition carinot lead to a contrarv conclusion.
Under s. 87 of the Act everv election petition shall be
tried by the High C'-0urt as n~''1.rlv ac; may be in 3ccordance v.-ith the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the trial of
c
D
E
F
G
"
HARDWARI LAL V. KANWAL SINGH (Ray, J.)
743
A
suits.
A suit which does not furnish cauce of ,.ction can be dismissed.
[750H-751A]
Samat N. Balakrishna etc.I George Fernandex & Ors., ~1969] 3 S.C.R.
603, Manubhai Nandlal Amersey v. Popat/a/ Manila/ Joshi & Ors., L1969]!
3 S.C.R. 217 and Hc.rish Chandra Bajpai & Anr. v. Triloki Singh 12
E. L.R. 461, applied.
B

## Text

742
HARDW ARI LAL
v.
KANWAL SINGH
December 1, 1971
[K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act. 1951 s. 123(1)-Corrupt practice
of obtainini assistance etc. from a Govern~ent servant-What constitutes
-When material particulars aFe not supplied the petition
must be dismissed.
The appellant was declared elected to the Hary'J.na Legislative Assembly from )lahadurgarh
constituency.
The respondent challenged
the
election on various grounds. In para 16 of the election petition it was
alleged that the appellant was guilty of the corrupt pmctice mentioned in
s. 123 (7) .of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 inasmuch as he
had wfitten letters to six Government servants seeking their assistance in
tie election. The High Court framed Issue No. 5 to deal with this allegation. The appellant applied to the High Court for further particulars to be
supplied by the respondent in support of his allegations in para 16 but the
application was rejected. The High Court held the appellant guilty of the
said corrupt practice and declared his election void. The appellant appealed
to this Court by special leave.
The question that fell for
consideration
was whether the petition was not maintainable in view of the appellant's
contention that cnaterial particulars in support of the allegation of corrupt
practice which was the subject-matter of Issue
No. 5 had not been
supplied.
HELD : The different expressions used in s. 123(7). namely, obtaining, ·procuring', 'abetting· or atten1pting to obtain or procure are various
forms of corrypt practice. It has to be found as to whether the allegation
of obtaining assistance amounts to an allegation of fact. It is well settled
that general expressions liKe "fraudulently', 'negligently' or 'maliciously' in
pleading; do not amount to allegations of fact. [746 HJ
Jn the present t\ase the allegations in para 16 of the election petition
did. not amount to any statement of material fact of corrupt practice. ll
was not stated a_s to what kind or form of assistance was obtained or procured or attempted to be obtai-ned or procured.
It was not stated from
whom the particular -type --of assistance was obtained or attempted to be
obtained or Jlrocured.
It was not stated in what
manner
the
assistance was for the furtherance of the prospect of the election.
The gravemen of the chaige of coirupt practic.! is obtaining or attempting to obtain
or procure any ao;;sistance other than the giving of a vote.
In the absence
of any suggestion as to w.hat the assistance was the election petition was
lacking in the most vital and essential material fact to furnish a cause of
action.
It did not ~mount to an election petition on grounds mentioned
;n '
123(7) of the Act and was therefore liable to be dismissed. [750
F-G]
The fact that s. 83 under which material particulars are required to be
supplied is not pientioned in s. 86 as one of the sections non-compliance
with which must result in dismissal of the petition carinot lead to a contrarv conclusion.
Under s. 87 of the Act everv election petition shall be
tried by the High C'-0urt as n~''1.rlv ac; may be in 3ccordance v.-ith the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the trial of
c
D
E
F
G
"
HARDWARI LAL V. KANWAL SINGH (Ray, J.)
743
A
suits.
A suit which does not furnish cauce of ,.ction can be dismissed.
[750H-751A]
Samat N. Balakrishna etc.I George Fernandex & Ors., ~1969] 3 S.C.R.
603, Manubhai Nandlal Amersey v. Popat/a/ Manila/ Joshi & Ors., L1969]!
3 S.C.R. 217 and Hc.rish Chandra Bajpai & Anr. v. Triloki Singh 12
E. L.R. 461, applied.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 129 of
c
E
F
G
H
1971.
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 from the Judgment and Order dated D~cember 24, 1970
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. I
. Of 1970.
Appellant appeared in person.
Anand Swaroop, Janardan Sharma and S. K. Nandy, for the·
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ra), J.
This is an appeal under section 116-A of the Repre··
sentation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
from the judgmeint and order dated 24 December, 1970 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana setting aside the election of
the appellant.
The appellant was declared elected to the Haryana Legislative
Assembly from Bahadurgarh Constituency. The polling
took
p:ace on 7 June, 1970.
The result was declared on 8 June. The·
appellant
obtained 22436
votes.
The respondent obtained
177 60 votes.
The respondent challenged the appellant's election on nume-·
rous grounds.
The election petition was filed on 23 July, 1970.
The written statement was filed on 2 September, 1970.
Seven issues were
framed at the trial on various allegations tGJ corrupt practice.
After the conclusion o.f evidence the petitioner gave up
pleas
giving rise to issues No. I and 2.
Issues No. 3(i), (iv), and
(vi) were also given up.
Issues
No. 3(ii), 3(iii), 3(v) a:nd
3(vii) were pressed and.the court decided the entii:.e issue No. 3
against the election petitioner.
Issues No. 4(a) and (b) were
decided against the election petitioner.
Issue No. 5 was held to
be proved only relating to Chand Ram Rathi and the remaining
issues were found not to be proved.
Issue No. 6 was consequential on issue No. 5 and inasmuch as the election petitioner
called in questioin only the election of the appellant and did not
claim any declaration either that the petitioner or any other candidate had been elected, no question of declaratibn under section
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
101 of the Act arose.
Issue No. 7 was answered by holding
that the appellant was guilty of commission of corruut · uractice
under section 123(7) of the Act.
The High Court, therefore,
dedared the election of the appellant to be void and held the
appellant guilty of the commission of corrupt practice under
section 123(7) of the Act and awarded costs amounting to
Rs. 2000/-.
The election petition succeeded only on issue No. 5.
Issue
No. 7 was the consequential relief.
Issue No. 5 related to paragraph 16 of the petition and allegations as to corrupt practice
within the meaning of section 123 (7) of the Act.
The only question for determination in this appeal is whether
the election petition was maintainable iin regard to allegations
ag~inst the appellant uner section 123 (7) of the Act, which
were comprised in issue No. 5.
The allegations in paragraph 16 of the petition were as follows : "That the respondent committed the corrupt practice of
obtaining and procuring or attempting to obtain and procure the
assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of his election from
the following persons who are in the service of the Government
and belonging to the prohibited classes within the meaning of
section 123(7) of the Act;
1. Shri Chand Ram Rathi,
Lecturer
in Political
Science, Government College, Gurgaon.
2. Shri Guiab Singh,
B.A.,
B.Ed.,
Government
High Court, J aharsa ( Gurgaon).
3. Pt. Bhim Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police
Security Lines, Lytton Road, New Delhi.
4. Ch. Chhattar Singh, M.A., B.T.
Teacher V. &
P.O. via Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak.
5. Ch. Mukhtiar Singh, Inspector of Police, Delhi.
6. Ch. Raghbir Singh, M.A., B.T., Bahadurgarh.
The respondent has written letters under his own signatures
to the above Government servants soliciting their help and assistance in furtherance of the prospects of his election".
The appellant submitted preliminary objections.
These were
inter alia that paragraph 16 al' the petition was liable to expunction "for it does not give the necessary particulars about the
nature of assistance and the place and the date where and when
such assistance was sought or received from the persons named
i.n the petition".
The appellant further dealt with paragraph 16
by denying the allegations.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HARDWARI LAL V. KANWAL SINGH (Ray, J.)
745
The High Coun by an order dated 11 September, 1970 dealt
with the preliminary objection.
As to allegations in paragraph
16 of the election petition the High Court said that in form BB
filed by the election petitioner particulars of letters written by the
appellant to the various persons mentioned therein had been given
at Serial Numbers 3 to 8. Dates of the letters and the script in which
they were written and the persons ·to whom they were addressed
had beQn mentioned in those items.
Counsel on behalf of the
appellant contended before the High Coun that the letters should
either be produced or details of their contents should be disclosed so as to enable the appellant to find out whether or not
the assistance alleged to have been sought from the addressees
of those letters was or was not sought for the furtherance of the
prospects of the appellant in election.
The High Court said that
the election petitioner could not be expected to be in possession
of letters and in the nature of thi:ngs it would not be possible for
the election petitioner to change the contents of letters and if
and when the letters were produced or admitted or proved, it
would be a mere matter of argument whether the writing of the
letters did or did not fall within the corrupt practice defined in
section 123 ( 7) of the Act.
The High Court declined to allow
further or better particulars asked for by the appellant.
At the trial Chand Ram Rathi whose name was mentioned in
item No. 8 in form BB annexed to the petition as one of the·
persons to whom the appellant had written a letter was examined
on behalf of the election petitioner on 3 December, 1970. The
election petitioner was also examined on 3 December, 1970. The
oral evidence of the election petitioner was concluded on 4 December, 1970.
On the same day, the appellant was examined
by the Court under Order 12, Rule 3 (a) of the Code of Civil
Procedure as to whether the appellant had written the letter
marked Ex. P.W. 34/l to Chand Ram Rathi. On the same day,
the appe!lant asked for an order to recall Chand Ram Rathi.
One of the grounds given by the appellant to recall the witness
was to put a letter dated 27 May, 1970 written by Chand Ram
Rathi to the appellant.
The High Court declined to acceede to
the prayer of the appellant on the ground that recalling the witness for proving the letter dated 27 May, 1970 written by Ch:md
Ram Rathi to the appellant would be to contradict the statement
of Chand Ram Rathi and to show that he was not a truthful
witness.
The High Court relied on the oral evidence of Chand Ram
Rathi to whom the appellant had written a letter and held that
'the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice within the meaatlng,
of section 123 (7) of the Act.
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 s.c.R.
The appellant appeared in person in this Court.
The appellant raised these contemions.
Paragraph 16 of the election
petition
did not contain
statement of ·material facts
to
amount to any allegation of corrupt practice against the appellant.
The High Court declined to order particulars.
The High
Court allowed oral evidence to be adduced by the election petitioner in the absence ot any plead~ng of material facts alleging
corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 ( 7) of the
Act.
Therefore, the appellant contended that first there was no
pleadii!g, secondly, particulars were not allowed to give the appellant an opportunity of knowing the case; and, thirdly, the High
Court allowed proof of matters of which there was no foundation
.in the pleadings.
Counsel on behalf of the election petitioner on the other hand
contended that the allegations were that the appellant had sought
assistance. from Government servants for the furtherance of the
prospects of the appellant's election and
particulars
of letters
were given and therefore Qie election petitioner alleged material
,. ·cts and proved the same in support of the allegations.
Under section 83 of the Act an election petition (a) shall
contain a concise statement of the material facts on wh :ch the
petitioner relies, (b) shall set forth full particulars o.f 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.
It is manifest that the election petition
shall not only contain material facts but also set forth particulars
of corrupt practice.
Section 123(7) of the Act is as follows:-
"The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or,
by any other person with the consent of a candidate
or his election agent, any assistance (other than the
giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of
that candidate's election, from any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the
.following classes, namely :
Clauses (a) to (g) which need not be set out here".
It has to be noticed that the different expressions
obtaining,
prncuring, abetting or attempting to obtain or procure are
various forms of corrupt practices.
It has to be found as to
whether the allegation of obtaining assistance amounts to an
allegation of fact.
It will well settled that general expressions
..
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
,
.A
B
D
E
F
G
H
HARDWARI LAL V, KANWAL SINGH (Ray, J.)
747
like 'fraudulently' 'negligently' or 'maliciously' in pleadings do
not amount to any allegation of fact.
A fact is after all not a
mere word.
The provisions of the aforesaid section indicate these heads
of corrupt practices.
First, the obtaining by a candidate or his
agent or by any other person any assistance
(other than the
giving of vote) for the
furtherance of the prospects
of
that
candidate's election from any person in the service oi the Government as mentioned in the, section.
Second, the procurmg
by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with
the
consent
of
the
election
petitioner
any
assistance
(other than the giving of vote) ,for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election. Third, the abetting by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the
candidate or his election agent any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance
of the
prospects
of that
candidates
election as mentioned.
Fourth,
the attempting
to obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent, or by any
other person with the consent of a
candidate or his election agent any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the
furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election. Fifth,
the assistance th!t is forbidden or prohibited by the statute is
any assistance other than the giving of vote. It is clear that the
four different heads of corrupt practices are (a) obtaining, (b)
procurin$, ( c) abetting, and ( d) attempting to obtain or procure assistance.
Therefore, material facts are to be alleged as to whether the
candidate obtained or procured or abetted or attempting to
obtain or procure any assistance other than the giving of vote.
In paragraph 16 of the election petition it is alleged
that the
appellant committed the corrupt practice or obtaining und procuring or attempting to obtain and procure assistance for
the'
furtherance of the prospects of his election from the
persons
mentioned there.
Reading paragraph 16 of the election petition
one will search in vain to find out as to whether the allegations
against the appeil~nt are in regard to the assistance under both
heads or either head from each of the six
persons mentioned
there.
One will speculate as to whether the appellant obtained
and procured or attempted to obtain and pr6cure assistance from
each or some of the persons
mentioned there.
Obtaining or
procuring or attempting to obtain or
procure
assistance
are
separate and independent forms of corrupt practice.
One will
guess as to whether the allegations are that the appellant committed all or one or more of the corrupt practices of obtaining,
procuring, attempting to obtain, or procure assistance from each
of the persons mentioned there.
One will also conjecture and
748
SUPREME CODRT REPORTS
[19:72) 2 S.C.R.
hazard as to what assistance was obtained or procun:d or attempt•
ed to obtain or procure from each of the persons mentioned
there, for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's
- election. The giving of vote is not within the mischief of corrupt
practice. lt cannot be understood from the petitioner whether
the giving of vote is the assistance alleged. It is, therefore, apparent tJ!at the appellant who was charged by the election petitioner
with corrupt practice should "be told in the election petition as
to what assistance he sought. The type of assistance, the manner
of assistance, the time of assistance,
the· person from
whom
assistance is sought are all to be set out in the petition about
the actual_ and the specific assistance with which the appellant
can be charged in violation of the provisions of tlii: Act. :Nor
is there any statement in the election
petition describing the
manner in which the prospects of the election were furthered
and the way in which the assistance was rendered.
The allegations against the appellant were in relation to six persons. Therefore, it was essential and imperative for the election petitioner
to set out with exactitude and precision the type of assistance as
also the manner in which assistance was obtained or procured
from each person.
The time, the date and the place of the
assistance were also required to be set out in ; the
particulars.
Thus it had to ·be alleged as the material facts as to what assistance the appellant obtained or procured or abl;:tted or attempted
to obtain or procure from which person and how the assistance
furthered the prospects of the appellant's election.1 If all
the
four variants and ingrediants were to be charged against the
appellant these had to be set out as statements of material facts
in relation to each person.
The requirements in an election petition as to material facts
and the consequences of lack of such allegation of material facts
came up for consideration in' this Court in the recent decision in
Samant N. Ba/akrishna etc. v. George Fernandes & Ors. etc.
(1969) 3 S.C.R. 603. In that case reference was made to sections 81. 83 and 86 of the Act as the procedure provisions of
election petition. Section 81 deals with presentation of petitions.
Section 83 deals with contents of petitions.
Section
86 deals
with trial of petitions. Hidayatullah, .C.J. speaking for the Court
laid down these prClpositions.
First, section 83 of the Act is
mandatory and requires first a concise statement of material facts
and then requires the fullest possible particulars.
Second, omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of
action and the statement of calm becomes bad.
Third, the function of particulars is to present in full a picture of the cause of
action to make the opposite party understand the case he will
have
to
meet.
Fourth, material facts and particulars
are
distinct matters. Material facts will mention statements of fact an
'
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HAIWWAlU LAL v. KANW~ SINGH (Ray, J,)
749
particulars will set out the names of person with the date, time
and {>lace. Fifth, material facts will show the ground of .corrupt
practlce and the complete cause of action and the particulars will
give the necessary information to present a full picture of the
cause °' action. Sixth, in stating the material facts it will not do
merely to quote the words of the section because then the efficacy of the material facts will be lost.
The fact which constitutes a corrupt practice must be stated and the fact must be correlated to one of the heads of corrupt practice.
Seventh, an
election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt
practice is no election petition at all.
A petition which merely
cites the sections cannot be said to disclose a cause of action
where the allegation is the obtaining or procuring of assistance
unless the exact type and form of assistance and the person from
whom it is sought and the manner in which the assistance is to
further the prospects of the election are alleged as statements
of facts.
The importance of material facts and the distinction between
the material facts and particulars was also brought out in another
recent decision of this Court in Manubhai Nandlal Amersey v.
Popatlal Mani/al Joshi & Ors., (1969) 3 S.C.R. 217. In that
case a charge in the petition was that several persons with the
consent of the appellant or his election agents induced or attempted
to induce the electors to believe that if they voted for the congress
party candidate they would become the objects of divine displeasure and spiritual censure.
At a late stage of the trial the
High Court gave leave to the election petitioner to amend the
petition by adding fresh particulars Of the corrupt practice.
Bachawat, J. speaking for the court said that.section 83 of the
Act was mandatory and particulars of corrupt practice were to
set out in full.
It was said in that case that no amendment in
the shape of particulars of corrupt practice was permissible if the
corrupt practice was not previously alleged in the petition. The
obvious need not be stressed. It is that an election petition has
the effect of declaring an election void.
It is a serious remedy.
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 w,as 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
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
the statute did not render the giving of vote a corrupt practice
the words 'any assistance' were full statement of m.aterial fact.
The submission is fallacious for the simple reason that the matter
of assistance, the mode of assistance, 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 calJ for an answer.
Material facts are facts 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 i!legative because the allegations
in the petition did not disclose any cause of action.
The necessity of clear and precise allegations to support a
plea of corrupt practice was emphasised by this Court in Harish
Chandra Bapai & Anr. v. Triloki Singh, 12 Election Law Reports
461.
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. speaking for the court in dealing
with the powers of the court to allow amendment in respect of
illegal or corrupt practice said that where the allegation in the
election petition in regard to the corrupt practice was that the
respondents could in furtherance of their election enlist the support of Government servants, the words 'could enlist' did not
amount to an averment that in fact they enlisted their support.
In other words, it was observed that the word 'could enlist' did
not allege a fact which happened.
Therefore, the happening
of a fact as well as the fact itself is material. Judged by that
test in the present case there is no allegation wl!ich will amount
to any avenuent of any assistance as a fact in the absence of the
kind of assistance being set out as a fact.
The allegations in paragraph 16 of the election petition do not
amount to any statement of material fact oJ' corrupt practice. It
is not stated as to which kind or fom1 of assistance was obtained
or procured or attempted to obtain or procure. It is not stated
from whom the particular type of assistance was obtained or
procured or attempted to obtain or procure. It is not stated in
what manner the assistance was for the furtherance of the prospects of the election.
The gravamen of the charge of corrupt
practice within the meaning of section 123(7) of the Act is
obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or
procute any assistance other than the giving of vote. In the
absence of any suggestion as to what that assistance was the
election petition is lacking in the most vital and essential material
fact to furnish a cause of action.
Counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that an election could· not be dismissed by reason of want of material facts
because section 86 of the Act conferred 'power on the High
Court to dismiss the election petition which did not comply with
A
B
c
J)
E
F
G
H
A
Ill
HARDWAR! LAL V. KANWAL SINGH (Ray, J.)
751
the provisions of section 81, or secton 82 or section 117 of the
Act. It. was emphasized that section 83 did not find place in
section 86.
Under section 87 of the Act every election petition
shall be tried by the High Court as nearly as 1nay be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 to the trial a4' suits.
A suit which does not furnish
cause of action can be dismissed.
Jn the present case, it is not necessary to go to the question
as to whether the High Court was justified in disallowing the
pmticulars and in refusing to reca]] the witnesses .for the reasons
given in the order, because paragraph 16 of the election petition
on which the High Court relied to declare the election of the apellant void does not amount to an election petition on the grounds
mentioned in section 123(7) of the Act.
For these reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside
The appeal is allowed. The election petition shall stand dismissed.
The parties will pay .llnd bear their costs in this appeal.
G.C.
Appeal al/01red.