While dealing with an election petition, the Allahabad High Court emphasised that non-disclosure of a single material fact would result in the dismissal of an election petition, as such a defect is incurable. Thus, such defects cannot be rectified by an amendment application.

In the given case, the Allahabad High Court was dealing with an application for the amendment of the election petition by the Petitioner and an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for the dismissal of the election petition by the Respondent no. 1. The Allahabad High Court, while emphasising the difference between “material facts” and “material particulars”, observed that a material fact goes to the root of the case, and the same cannot be disclosed by amendment in an election petition.

The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Aggarwal observed that “Non disclosure of material fact is an incurable defect which leads to an inevitable conclusion that an election petition is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in above cited cases had already made distinction between “material facts” and “material particulars” and had already held that omission of a single material fact leads to dismissal of an election petition and defect cannot be rectified in subsequent amendment proceedings.”

Advocate Virendra Singh represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Adya Prasad Tiwari represented the Respondent no. 1.

Brief Facts

An election petition was filed by the Petitioner in relation to the U.P. Legislative Assembly, questioning the election of the respondent no. 1, on the ground that he belonged to the category of OBCs while the Constituency from which the said Respondent was elected has been reserved for the Scheduled Caste.

The first amendment application filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the Court on the ground that it did not disclose the amendment sought by the Petitioner. While preferring the Second Amendment application, without the leave of the Court, various contentions were made for the amendment of the election petition.

However, the same was opposed by the Respondent on the ground that the Petitioner intends to amend the material facts rather than material particulars and it would change the nature of the election petition, as no material facts can be added after the election petition has been filed.

Court’s Reasoning

The Allahabad High Court referred the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and various judgments discussing the difference between the terms “material facts” and “material particulars”. It was opined that: “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 sub-section (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 alleged to have committed such corrupt practice.”

Similarly, the Court turned to Order VI of CPC and discussed the rules of pleadings. It was observed that Rule 2 and 4 of Order VI of CPC provide a clear distinction between the “material facts” and “particulars”.

Further, with regard to the application under Order VII Rule 11, it was observed that “Order VII Rule 11(a) clearly provides for rejection of a plaint in case of non disclosure of cause of action. Similarly, in an election petition, if the petitioner does not disclose the material fact, it leads to an inevitable conclusion that an incomplete cause of action has been set up and the petition become bad and liable to be dismissed. The defect is not curable as it leads to the root of the case, while it is not the same in case of non disclosure of entire material particulars.”

The Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner tried to bring on record material facts which had been left while filing the election petition instead of material particulars. Hence, it is well well-settled principle of law that material facts going to the root of the case cannot be allowed to be amended in the concerned election petition.

Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court, while allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC dismissed the election petition on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action.

Cause Title: Prem Pal Singh V. Prem Pal Singh Dhangar & Ors. (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:93154)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Sanjay Kumar Srivastav and Virendra Singh

Respondents: Advocates Adya Prasad Tewari, Jai Prakash Rao, Rajesh Kumar Tiwari

Click here to read/download Order





Allahabad High CourtJustice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.