D.P.SINGH,J. - (1.) THE present election petition has been preferred by the petitioner Samari Lal, a defeated candidate during general elections for Jharkhand Assembly held in February, 2005, by which the election of respondent No. 1, Ramchandra Baitha, sitting MLA from Kanke Constituency, has been challenged.
(2.) THE election petition was preferred within time on 12.4.2005 and admitted for hearing on merit by order dated 9.2.2007. Then notices were issued to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who appeared on different dates and filed written statements to contest the present election petition. Respondent No. 1 his filed written statement on 17.4.2007 at Flag G. Before the written statement being filed, a petition under Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed on 9.4.2007 at Flag F. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the written statement and recriminatory petition denying the facts stated in the written statement as well as recriminatory petitions vide Flag H dated 16.5.2007 and Flag I dated 17.5.2007. The petitioner thereafter preferred an amendment petition, Flag J dated 9.7.2007 under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. In the amendment petition the petitioner asserted that due to oversight and typing mistakes, some errors have crept in the original election petition. Accordingly, he has sought permission to delete the following from para 9 of the main petition as well as prayer portion:.Is no doubt entitled for declared as Return candidate in place of..and declare/consider the name of the petitioner as Truly/validly Return candidate of the Election..
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed rejoinder to this amendment petition opposing that the proposed amendments were not permissible for the following reasons: (1) The provisions of CPC are not applicable and barred under Section 87 of the Act as the Act itself is comprehensive and provides all measures with which the election petition needs to be disposed of. (2) In view of the non -compliance of provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Act, the election petition is liable to be dismissed (3) This amendment petition has been brought to fill up the lacuna and advantage already acquired by the respondent No. 1 due to laches on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 pressed this point as preliminary issue before considering the main petition for disposal on merit. ;