RAJ NARAIN versus SMT. INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI AND ANR

RAJ NARAIN versus SMT. INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI AND ANR

The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in striking out issues relating to corrupt practice as the ingredients were set out in the petition, and amendments clarifying material facts should have been allowed. If objection to particulars is taken, opportunity to amend must be given. However, interrogatories not reasonably connected to matters in issue may be struck out.

Parties
Appellant: Raj Narain; Respondent No. 1: Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi; Respondent No. 2: Swami Advaita Nand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 March 1972
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals by Special Leave / Appeal From Orders of Allahabad High Court on Applications in Election Petition No. 5 of 1971
Outcome
Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1972 allowed in part; Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1972 allowed in full; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices, Amendment of Pleadings, Interrogatories
Election Law Civil Procedure Election Petitions Corrupt Practices Amendment of Pleadings Interrogatories

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Narain

Appellant

Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi

Respondent No. 1

Swami Advaita Nand

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals by Special Leave / Appeal From Orders of Allahabad High Court on Applications in Election Petition No. 5 of 1971

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the allegations in the election petition disclose the corrupt practice under section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant could amend the election petition to provide better particulars of the corrupt practice after the period of limitation.
  3. 3 Whether the interrogatories served on the respondent have reasonable close connection with matters in question in the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in striking out issues relating to corrupt practice as the ingredients were set out in the petition, and amendments clarifying material facts should have been allowed. If objection to particulars is taken, opportunity to amend must be given. However, interrogatories not reasonably connected to matters in issue may be struck out.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1972 allowed in part; Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1972 allowed in full; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Order of trial judge striking out Issue No. 1 and part of Issue No. 3 set aside.
  • Amendment to election petition allowed; respondent to have opportunity to file additional written statement.