MANPHUL SINGH versus SURINDER SINGH

MANPHUL SINGH versus SURINDER SINGH

The election petition contained more than sufficient material facts and particulars as required by section 83(1)(a) and (b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The party need not state the evidence in the petition. The allegations were not vague and raised triable issues. No hard and fast rule need be laid down for the trial procedure; the trial judge is expected to handle evidence examination to expedite proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Manphul Singh; Respondent: Surinder Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 April 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated August 17, 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition 45 of 1972
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices, Pleading Requirements
Election Law Election Petitions Corrupt Practices Pleading Requirements

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manphul Singh

Appellant

Surinder Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated August 17, 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition 45 of 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the election petition contains sufficient material facts and particulars as required under section 83(1)(a) and (b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether charges of corrupt practice and irregularities in voting and counting raise triable issues

Ratio Decidendi

The election petition contained more than sufficient material facts and particulars as required by section 83(1)(a) and (b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The party need not state the evidence in the petition. The allegations were not vague and raised triable issues. No hard and fast rule need be laid down for the trial procedure; the trial judge is expected to handle evidence examination to expedite proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant will pay the respondent's costs.