R.S. Narula, J. - (1.) AT the commencement of evidence in this election petition, the contesting respondent roade this application yesterday praying (i) that the names of witnesses Nos. 78 to 80 be struck out and (ii) that the election -petitioner be ordered to examine himself first before his other evidence is recorded. Notice of the application was given to the election -petitioner for today. In the meantime an oral request was made by the Learned Counsel for the returned candidate to exclude the petitioner from the Court at the time of examination of Hoshiar Singh P.W. 8 (after the official and formal witnesses had been examined). The prayer excluding the petitioner from the Court room has been pressed only in the event of his neither choosing to examine himself first, nor being directed by the Court to be examined before recording the statements of his other witnesses. The description of witnesses Nos. 78 to 80 given in the list filed by the petitioner is in the following words: - JUDGEMENT_33_LAWS(P&H)9_1971.htm The objection of the contesting respondent to the production of the above mentioned three witnesses is to the effect that there being no allegation of fact in the entire petition that either the Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee or the District Congress Committees incurred any expenses nor any such corrupt practice having been alleged to have been committed by the contesting respondent, no evidence can be led in that behalf, and the production of accounts of the political parties, which are being summoned with an ulterior motive to fish out evidence and which are otherwise irrelevant, should not be permitted. In his written reply to the application, the petitioner has stated that though indeed there is no allegation in the petition that the Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee, or the District Congress Committees incurred any expense, the evidence in dispute is being produced to refute the earlier assertion of respondent No. 1 contained in his written statement to the effect that the meeting held on February 28, 1971, was arranged by the Pradesh Congress Committee, and to refute the assertion that the election offices were maintained by the District or the local Congress Committees.
(2.) IN paragraph 6(d)(iv) of the election petition, it has been alleged that an expenditure of about Rs. 8,000 was incurred or authorised by respondent No. 1 to be incurred on the setting up or erection of rostrum and barricades and plying of vehicles (of which a list has been given in that sub -paragraph of the petition) in the course of organising a public meeting which was held at Kaithal on February 28, 1971, and which was addressed by the Prime Minister In reply to that allegation the returned candidate has stated inter alia in the corresponding paragraph of his written statement that though a public meeting was convened and held at Kaithal on February 28, 1971, which was addressed by the Prime Minister, yet it is incorrect that the respondent organised the said meeting of that the respondent incurred any expenditure or authorised the incurring of any expenditure for the setting up or erection of the rostrum and barricades or for plying the alleged vehicles. It is then stated by the respondent as follows: - the arrangement for the meeting of the Hon'ble the Prime Minister was the concern of the Pradesh Congress Committee and the answering respondent had nothing to do therewith. The rostrum and the barricades were all set up by the Pradesh Congress Committee and not by the answering respondent. Similarly in paragraph 6(d)(iii) of the petition an allegation has been made about nine election offices having been set up by the contesting respondent at various places in the districts of Karnal and Jind, in the setting up of which about Rs. 20,000/ - are alleged to have been spent in the ordinary course, but no part of that expenditure has been shown in the return of election expenses filed by the respondent. The averment of the contesting respondent in reply to the abovementioned allegation is that though it is admitted that election offices were set up, the same had not been set up at the cost or expense of the contesting respondent, but the offices had been set up by the Pradesh Congress Committee and other Congress Committees at several places for the purpose of contacting workers at a central place. In the same para graph (paragraph 6(d)(ii)) of the written statement, the contesting respondent has added that "it was as a matter of fact the work of the Pradesh Congress Committee, the District Congress Committee and the subordinate Congress Committees", and that it. was incorrect that any expense much less Rs. 20,000/ - or in fact any amount had been spent by the answering respondent on those offices, and, therefore, the question of the respondent showing such expenditure in his return did not arise at all.
(3.) CHAUDHRY Bakhtawar Singh, Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Mustafa v. Sri Abu Bakar, (1971) 1 SCWR 91, wherein it was held that a finding reached by a Court without proper pleadings and necessary issues cannot bind any of the parties to the suit. The two issues which have been framed by me in connection with the allegations made in paragraphs 6(d)(ii) and 6(d)(iv) of the pleadings are issues Nos. (9)(ii) and (9)(vii). These read as below: - (9) Whether respondent No. 1 committed the corrupt practice of incurring and authorising expenditure of more than Rs. 35,000/ - on the election in question by: - (i)............ (ii) spending Rs. 20,000/ - or more on the setting up of nine election offices at Narwana, Kalayat, Kaithal, Rajaund, Pundri, Pehowa Shenada, Thanesar and Shahbad; (iii) to (vi)......... (vii) spending Rs. 8,000/ - on organising public meeting at Kaithal on February 28, 1971.;