JUDGMENT
Devinder Gupta, J.
(1) The short question to be decided in this application is as to whether the petitioner be or be not permitted to amend the election petition, which was instituted on 1st August, 1991.
(2) The petitioner has alleged that in para 14.1 of the petition a reference has been made about the speech of one Shri K.C. Ravi, which was made in the presence of respondent No. I and is a corrupt practice. Respondent No. I has been misconstruing this para and claiming that Mr. K.C. Ravi, mentioned in the said para is the same person as Mr. Kishan Chand Ravi, who is the District President of Bhartya Janta Party and also a candidate in the election. According to the petitioner, the said contention raised by respondent No. 1 is a dilatory tactic to delay the disposal of the petition. Petitioner further alleges that respondent No. I had filed I.A.11032 of 1991 praying that election petition be dismissed for not impleading the said Kishan Chand Ravi as allegations of corrupt practice have been raised against him in the petition and he was also a candidate for the Parliamentary election. Moving of the said miscellaneous application was also an attempt on the part of respondent No. I to further delay the disposal of the election petition. Petitioner by way of reply to the said miscellaneous application had clarified that Mr. K.C. Ravi, referred to in para 14.1 of the petition is not the same person as Mr. Kishan Chand Ravi, the BJ.P. District President. It was also clarified that Mr. K.C. Ravi, as referred to in para 14.1 of the petition was a recent refugee from Punjab. After making these averments, the petitioner in para-6 of the application states that she seeks to amend the election petition by supplying additional particulars of the corrupt practice already alleged in para 14.1 of the petition.The amendment sought for has also been quoted in para 6 of the application that Speaker K.C. Ravi (not Kishan Chand Ravi, District B.J.P. President.
(3) This application has vehemently been opposed by respondent No. I on a number of grounds, e.g. that the application is highly belated and is mala fide. Petitioner wants to wriggle out of the stand, which she has taken in the original petition, knowing fully well that K.C. Ravi whom she had referred in para 14.1 of the election petition was a candidate in the election and Realizing that by not impleading him, the petition was likely to be dismissed, she has after a period of more than 3″ years come forward in seeking amendment to the election petition. Amendment prayed for, if allowed, will not only prejudice the case of respondent No. I but also cause irreparable injury. Parties have also led evidence on issue No. 16 framed in this case and now Realizing her difficulty she is trying to wriggle out of the stand taken in the original petition.
(4) 1 have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length, who have taken me through the entire record.
(5) The law on amendment of election petitions is well settled and need not be reiterated except by making reference to one decision of the Supreme Court in F.A. Sapa etc. v. Singora and Others etc. . It has been held that High Court is empowered to allow the particulars of any corrupt practice, alleged in the petition to be amended or modified under Section 86(5) of the Representation of the People Act, provided the amendment does not have the effect of widening the scope of the election petition by introducing particulars in regard to a corrupt practice not previously alleged or pleaded within the period of limitation in the election petition. In other words, the amendment or amplification must relate to particulars of a corrupt practice already pleaded and must not be an effort to expand the scope of the inquiry by introducing particulars regarding a different corrupt practice not earlier pleaded. Only the particulars of that corrupt practice of which the germ exist in the election petition can be amended or amplified and there can be no question of introducing a new corrupt practice. It has further been held that Section 86(5) of the Act permits particulars of any corrupt practice, alleged in the petition, to be amended or amplified and not the material facts. The decision further clarifies on the powers of the Court in allowing the amendment within the ambit aforementioned saying that where the amendment sought for falls within the preview of Sub-section (5) of Section 86, the High Court should be liberal in allowing the same unless, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds it unjust and prejudicial to the opposite party to allow the same. Such prejudice’ must, however, be distinguished from mere inconvenience.
(6) In view of the above proposition in law which has been restated on reference to a number of earlier decisions, the other judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the parties need not be referred to at this stage. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that by way of the proposed amendment the respondent is merely trying to elaborate and explain the particulars of the corrupt practice already alleged in the election petition by saying that K.C. Ravi, is not Kishan Chand Ravi who is the District President of B.J.P. Otherwise in the election petition material facts, as regards the corrupt practice are fully supplied. It is contended that the application moved by the petitioner falls within the ambit and scope of law laid down in F.A. Sapa’s case. No prejudice is likely to be caused to respondent No. I since petitioner’s case throughout, after respondent No. I put in presence, has been that K.C. Ravi to whom reference has been made is not K.C. Ravi, who is the District President of B.J.P.
(7) Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that it is only after filing of the election petition and after the objection was raised by respondent No. I that the petitioner realised the blunder she had committed in not impleading K.C. Ravi, therefore, in order to wriggle out of that situation, later on a stand was taken by her that K.C. Ravi to whom reference has been made is not the same person, who is the District President of B.J.P. and who was a candidate in the election. It is also contended that parties were put to trial on this issue and after parties have adduced evidence that this application has been moved. The act of moving the application itself is mala fide and mischievous. The petitioner’s attempt is to wriggle out of the position, which she originally took. The net result of allowing of the amendment at this stage would be to permit the petitioner to give up an allegation of corrupt practice against K.C. Ravi, the District President of B.J.P. and introduce a fresh allegation of corrupt practice against another person also known K.C. Ravi. Learned Counsel for the respondent has made reference to a number of decisions that at this stage election petition itself deserves to be dismissed since the petitioner has not imploded K.C. Ravi a candidate in the election, as a party, although an allegation of corrupt practice has been made against him. I am not inclined to accept this contention at this stage while hearing application for amendment.
(8) In the light of the principles laid down in F.A. Sapa’s case (Supra) and after considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent, I am of the considered view that the application for amendment is liable to be dismissed.
(9) The petition was instituted on 1st August, 1991. On 20th October, 1991, I.A. 11032/91 was moved by respondent No. I seeking dismissal of the petition on the ground of non impleading of K.C. Ravi that allegations made in the election petition for corrupt practice have been made against K.C. Ravi, the District President of B.J.P. who was a candidate in the election, who has not been imploded as a party to the petition. Reply to the application was filed by the petitioner on 31st October, 1991 clarifying that reference made in para 14.1 of the election petition is not to K.C. Ravi, the District President of B.J.P. but to some other K.C. Ravi. On 1st November, 1991, when the case was taken up in Court statement of the petitioner was recorded. A question was put to her as to who is Mr. K.C. Ravi to whom the reference has been made in para 14.1 of the petition, to which she replied that she was not aware of the particulars of Mr. K.C. Ravi to whom a reference has been made by her in paragraph 14.1 of the petition. However, Mr. K.C. Ravi referred to in the said para is not the same K.C. Ravi who is the District President of B.J.P., also a candidate from the Karol Bagh Parliamentary constituency. She, however, admitted that the speech delivered by Mr. K.C. Ravi amounts to corrupt practice. She also stated that one Mr. Subhash Jatav gave her the information regarding the speech of Mr. K.C. Ravi. On the same day, the Court made an order directing the parties to bring their witnesses on 4th November, 1991 at their own responsibility clarifying that evidence of the parties will be recorded on the question as to whether Mr. K.C. Ravi, who has been referred to in paragraph 14.1 of the petition, was a candidate or not, at the elections in dispute. The case was adjourned to 4th November, 1991, on which date petitioner did not bring any evidence. Learned Counsel for respondent No. I stated that in accordance with the last order, he had brought witnesses to rebut evidence, if any, to be led by the petitioner. Case was adjourned to 20th November, 1991 on the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved I.A.I 1938/91 seeking review of the order dated 1st November, 1991. The case was taken upon 20th November, 1991, on which date petitioner withdrew her application seeking review of the order dated 1st November, 1991. The Court made an order that in view of the statement made by the petitioner that Mr. K.C. Ravi is not the same person, who was the District President of B.J.P., Corporator or a candidate from the Karol Bagh Parliamentary Constituency, in case respondent No. I wants to urge that Mr. K.C. Ravi, who has been mentioned in para 14.1 of the petition is the same K.C. Ravi who is the District President of B.J.P., Corporator or a candidate from the Karol Bagh Parliamentary Constituency, then the evidence on this question will have to be first led by respondent No. 1. An order was made calling upon respondent No. I to bring his witnesses at his own responsibility on the next date by which date respondent No. 1 was also to file reply to the main election petition. From the order sheet, it appears that the case was thereafter not posted for recording of evidence on the point.
(10) After parties completed their pleadings, issues were framed on 26th July, 1994. The case was directed to be posted for 11th August, 1994. Meanwhile, fresh application had been made and on 25th October, 1994, after going through the issues framed, it was ordered that issues No. 9 to 17 will be tried as preliminary issues. Since onus of some of which had not correctly been put issues 9 to 19 were re-casted. Issue No. 16, as re-casted on 25th October, 1994 reads: “Whether the petition is maintainable for not impleading Shri K.C. Ravi, against whom allegations of corrupt practices have been made and who was a candidate at the election? O.P.P.”
(11) Parties were directed to adduce evidence on preliminary issues 9 to 17. On 17th November, 1994, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought a short adjournment to produce evidence on preliminary issues 9 and 17. The case was adjourned to 8th December, 1994, on which date petitioner examined herself as Public Witness .I and closed her evidence. Respondent No. I was asked to rebut the evidence on 10th January, 1995, which was led on that date by respondent No. I. The case was then posted for 14th February, 1995 for petitioner’s evidence in rebuttal, if any, subject to the objection raised by learned Counsel for respondent No. I that whether petitioner is or is not entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal. On the adjourned date instead of doing so, the petitioner preferred this application for amendment.
(12) In addition to the aforementioned facts, it may further be observed that on 20th November, 1991, the Court directed the petitioner to furnish particulars of Mr. K.C. Ravi to whom a reference has been made in para 14.1 of the petition, which the petitioner did by filing affidavit on 10th December, 1991, namely, before respondent No. I filed his written statement to the main petition. In the affidavit dated 10th December, 1991, it has been stated that as per the information collected by the petitioner, K.C. Ravi was described by the announcer at the election meeting, as a recent refugee from Punjab and no other particulars were detailed out in respect of him in the said election meeting. She further states that the informants further confirmed that the above referred K.C. Ravi, excerpts of whose speech are stated in paragraph 14.1 of the petition, is not that Mr. K.C. Ravi who is the District President of B.J.P. (Karol Bagh) and who was also a Corporator. It is further stated in the affidavit that the informants specifically told the petitioner that no other or further introductory reference was made in the meeting as regards the said K.C. Ravi, the speaker at the meeting, who was clearly described as a recent refugee by the announcer at the said election meeting. In response to the Court’s order, the petitioner on affidavit supplied the particulars of K.C. Ravi, whereafter respondent No. I filed his reply. Parties thereafter have been taken to trial on issues No. 9 to 17. It is not spelt out in the application as to why the petitioner now seeks amendment of the petition at this stage, more particularly when petitioner has already led her evidence and has also closed evidence on the issues. The question will have to be decided on the basis of the material on record. In the petition, no other particulars of K.C. Ravi are given by the petitioner except by stating that speaker on the relevant date, time and place was K.C. Ravi. In the absence of any other explanation during the course of arguments as to why amendment is necessary, no other inference can be drawn then that the petitioner, at this stage, with a mala fide intention wants to wriggle out from the situation in which she has placed herself. It appears that she herself is not clear in her stand. In case such an amendment is considered necessary by her, it is also not stated and explained as to why, after filing of the affidavit in Court, such amendment was not sought for a period of almost three years and more particularly before the commencement of the evidence. When evidence has already been led by both the parties, the act of seeking amendment is nothing but a clever attempt to get rid of the situation whereby the effect of the amendment would be to permit the petitioner to take a stand that K.C. Ravi was not that K.C. Ravi for which a reference is made by respondent No. I in his evidence.
(13) The petitioner as a matter of fact now wants to say specifically in her petition that K.C. Ravi, mentioned in para 14.1 of the petition, who is alleged to have made speech was not the District President of B.J.P. In other words, such a plea, if allowed to be taken at this stage, will amount to depriving the respondent No. 1 of the objection raised in the reply that reference in para 14.1 of the petition is to no other person other than K.C. Ravi, a candidate in the election. In view of the aforementioned background, more particularly that petition was filed on 12th August, 1991 and parties were taken to trial on issues 9 to 17 whereafter they have led evidence on Issue No. 16 and also on a specific point on which petitioner’s attention was drawn as far back as on 20th November, 1991, the act of the petitioner now coming to the Court under the garb of clarifying or supplying correct particulars of K.C. Ravi is nothing but a mala fide attempt. No such clarification was ever sought for by respondent No. I. As noticed above, the Court on its own called upon the petitioner to file an affidavit, which she did in pursuance to the said order, before respondent No. I could file his written statement. In these circumstances, I do not consider it to be a fit case to permit the petitioner to amend the petition. Allowing of amendment definitely would cause immense prejudice to respondent No. I, who has already closed his evidence on the basis of the allegations already made and in the light of what was stated by the petitioner in her affidavit. Allowing amendment would also have the effect of having a fresh trial on one of the issues on which parties have already closed their evidence. The application accordingly is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000.00 . E.P. No. 1191
(13) To come up for evidence in rebuttal, as ordered on 10th January, 1995, on 20th October, 1995.
(14) The petitioner to ensure the presence of the witnesses on the next date and in case assistance of the Court is required, the petitioner will be at liberty to obtain summons dusty from the Registry. The production of the witnesses shall be the responsibility of the petitioner and in case the witnesses are not produced on the next date, petitioner’s evidence shall be deemed to be closed. It is, however, made clear that petitioner can lead evidence in rebuttal only on those issues, burden of which is on the respondent and on which the respondent has led evidence and not on any other issue.