M. Katju, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 21-8-1898 Annexure-8 to the petition, by which tho amendment application has been allowed. It appears that the petitioner was elected as Block Pramukh and against the said election an election petition has been filed by respondent No. 2 which is pending. During the pendency of the election petition an amendment application was filed that in place of Rs. 250/- as security the words Rs. 500/- should be substituted in the election petition. This application was allowed by the impugned order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that election law is a technical law and hence the said amendment should not have been allowed as it restores a non-maintainable petition.;