YENDAPALLI SRINIVASULU REDDY versus VEMIREDDY PATTABHIRAMI REDDY & ORS.

YENDAPALLI SRINIVASULU REDDY versus VEMIREDDY PATTABHIRAMI REDDY & ORS.

The amendment was allowable because the election petitioner had not pleaded 'corrupt practice' as a ground; the proposed averments were particulars amplifying an already pleaded ground of improper acceptance/non-compliance and did not introduce a new cause of action or change the character of the election petition, and therefore the High Court rightly allowed the amendment under the applicable principles governing amendment of pleadings in election petitions.

Parties
Appellant / Returned Candidate: Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy; Respondent No.1 / Election Petitioner: Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (against High Court Order) / Appeal Against High Court Order Allowing Amendment of Election Petition; Final Hearing and Disposal by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Election Petition, Improper Acceptance of Nomination, Non Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents, Corrupt Practice, Order VI Rule 17 CPC
Election Law Representation of the People Act, 1951 Civil Procedure Amendment of Election Petition Improper Acceptance of Nomination Non Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents Corrupt Practice Order VI Rule 17 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy

Appellant / Returned Candidate

Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy

Respondent No.1 / Election Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (against High Court Order) / Appeal Against High Court Order Allowing Amendment of Election Petition; Final Hearing and Disposal by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendment to an election petition to add averments about non-disclosure of criminal antecedents is permissible after the period of limitation
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would introduce particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged, contrary to Section 86(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  3. 3 Whether omission to disclose criminal antecedents in Form 26 renders the nomination/affidavit defective and can be pleaded as a ground under Section 100(1)(d)(i) or Section 100(1)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment was allowable because the election petitioner had not pleaded 'corrupt practice' as a ground; the proposed averments were particulars amplifying an already pleaded ground of improper acceptance/non-compliance and did not introduce a new cause of action or change the character of the election petition, and therefore the High Court rightly allowed the amendment under the applicable principles governing amendment of pleadings in election petitions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Order dated 06.12.2019 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowing amendment of the election petition is upheld.