THE REPRESENTA TION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 257

sec 93
AND FRACTICE
(Sec 3. Dismissal of election petition-Dismissal of election petition under
LAWS
ELECTION

Section 90 (3) of security deposit not in order. Held, order to be regarded as

In an election petition,

the original
claim and
counter-claim.

making
assed under Section 98 (a), and an appeal would lie under Section 116- A.-
judgment,
both on
becomes a
counter-petitioner
Chandrika Prasad Tripathi v. Shiv Prasad
Chanpuria, AIR 1959 SC 827 1959
returmed
candidate,
who
recriminates

made in the recrimination is a ALJ 494 (SC).

the Therefore the
counter-claim

counter-claim. under Rule 6-A of Order

a
n a t u r e of a
cross-suit as is provided Carbon copies of original accompanying election petition bearing signature
in the decision of the Apex
cross-action or by words
petitioner. Though copy" not written on copies held, sufficient
thereunder

VIII Under the RP

Act and rules
framed

the election and the recrimination of "True

with Section 81 (3) hence petition cannot be rejected under Section 90
there prohibition
is no
to hear
rompliance
Court
and to dispose of the same single judgment. Therefore, in
by a
(3)-Dr. Anup Singh
v. Abdul Ghani, AIR 1965 SC 815.
petition together under the provisions of Rule 6-A. The
exercise of the
inherent powers
or

petition can be heard

Where election petition was not accompanied with treasury Order receipt.
recrimination Section 90 (3) held, applicable under Section 116-A -Om
election petition as well a s the
of dismissal under
Lal Basumatari Gian Chand, AIR 1959 SC 837.
of by a c o m m o n judgment.-Amrit Prabha Jain v.
together and disposed at 86 ; 1990 (2) Gau
Abdul Muhib Mazumdar, AIR 1991 Gau 85 Section 90 (1) of the Act every election petition is, subject to the
Recrimination v. Bv
and k u l e s m a d e thereunder, to be tried as nearly as may
LR 221 provisions of the Act
with the procedure applicable under the Civil Procedure Code
88-92. [**) be in accordance

SYNOPSiS
to the trial
of suits: and for failure
tribunal may strike out
furnish
to a
after being so ordered,
particulars
defective plea. The practice to be
286 but not before the
1 Amendment in election petition. where insutticient particulars ot a
corrupt practice are set
followed in cases
Condonation of delay 286
****-*. **********a***************************************** i s this. An election petition is not liable to be
.257 forth in a n election petition
Dismissal ofelection petition. because full particulars of a corrupt practice alleged
267 dismissed in limine merely
4 Jurisdiction of Tribunals -aru-p-"***
not set out. Where a n objection is raised by the respondent
287 i n the petition a r e
Trial.- ** ~****************************************************
that a petition is defective because full particulars of an alleged corrupt
6. Withdrawal or abandonment of claaim..
not set out the tribunal is bound to decide whether the objection is
1. Amendment in election petition.--Election petition setting forth
practice are

well founded. If the tribunal upholds the objection, it should give a n

insufficient particulars of corrupt practice. Tribunal should allow an amend or amplify the
opportunity to the petitioner to apply for leave to
opportunity to amend. Non-compliance may entail striking out to particulars of the corrupt practice alleged; and in the event of non-compliance
charges. Parties going to trial. Appellate Court may consider the question of with that order the tribunal may strike out the charges which remain
prejudice.-Balwant Singh v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1960 SC 770: (1960) 3 SCR vague".-Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1960 SC 77.
911.
4. Jurisdiction of Tribunals.-Jurisdiction of Tribunals to amend pleadings.
Tribunal has power to direct amendment of in Other ground under Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) not taken in petition, held, cannot be
petition appropriate cases,
allowed by amendment beyond limitation.S.M. Banerji v. Sri Krishna
but has power to permit
no
charges to be raised
new beyond period of
Agarwal, AIR 1960 SCC 368 (1960) 2 SCR 289.
limitation. Allegations of corrupt practice must be sufficiently clear and
precise. No provision for a replication to be filed.-Harish Chand Bajpai v.
5. Trial-Entire proceedings before the Tribunal for the time the petition
Triloki Singh, AIR 1957 SC 444.
is transferred to it to the award held, covered by trial.-Harish Chand Bajpai
Election Tribunal can allow election v. Triloki Singh, AIR 1957 SC 444.
petition to be amended and dismiss the
amended petition for 6. Withdrawal or abandonment of claim.-In withdrawal or
non-compliance with Section 82.-Amin Lal v. Hunna
Mal, AIR 1965 SC 1243. abandonment of part of claim. Right of recrimination under Section 97 cannot be
2. Condonation of taken away.-Inamati Mallappa v. Desai Basavaraj, AIR 1958 SC 698.
delay.-Where Commission condoning one day's delay.
Held, it is not open to Election Tribunal to 93. Documentary evidence.-Notwithstanding anything in
reconsider the matter.-Bhikaji K.
Joshi v. Brij Lal Nand Lal, AIR 1955 SC 61: any enactment to the contrary, no document shall be
2 (1955) SCR 428.
1 See footnote for Section 87. inadmissible in evidence at the trial of an election petition o n
the ground that it is not duly stamped or registered.
 Sec. 971 THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951
ELECTION LAWS AND
PRACTICE Sec..93-Syn.1
288
Provided that
SYNOPSISs
(a) a witness, who answers truly all
ground of improper voting and
1 Filing of election petition oncould
booth capturing .288
required to answer shall be questions which he is
Inspection of ballot papers
be ordered if there was some discrepancy
288
of entitled to receive a certificate
2
ground of improper voting and booth indemnity from '[the High Court]; and
1. Filing of election petition on

to the question of issuance of a whip, there is nothing on (b) an answer

given by witness to a question put by or
a
capturing-In regard before "[the High Court] shall not,
fact a whip was issued by the Congress Party except in the case of any
the record to establish that in it is not criminal proceeding for
asking its members to abstain from voting. In the circumstances,
be admissible in evidence
perjury in respect of the evidence,
the second submission made
necessary for this
Court to consider in further detail against any civil or criminal
have only relied upon the press reports. In proceeding
by the petitioner. The petitioners reliance can be placed on the press reports
the absence of positive evidence, no (2) When a certificate of indemnity has been granted to any
Lok Sabha belonging to the Congress Party witness, it may be
that a whip had been issued to the pleaded by him in any Court and shall be a
even if the members of the Congress full and complete defence to or upon any charge under Chapter
to abstain from voting. As said above,
not duty bound to vote under
the
Party abstained from voting they were IX-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or Part VIl of this Act
cannot be said to be contrary
Constitution and as such their action of abstention
Toor v. Union of India through Secretary
arising out of the matter to which such certificate relates, but it
shall not be deemed to relieve him from any disqualification in
to the Constitution.-loginder Singh
New Delhi, AIR 1994 P&H 35 at
38
Law, Justice and Companies Affairs, connection with an election imposed by this Act or any other
303.
(1994) 1 Pun LJ 121: 1994 (1) Serv Cases Today law
could be ordered if there was some
2. Inspection of ballot papers 96. Expenses of witnesses.-The reasonable expenses incurred
of the ballot papers has to be maintained but
discrepancy.-The secrecy by any person in attending to give evidence may be allowed by
and if it was found prima facie that
paramount importance was of doing justice (the High Court] to such person and shall, unless '[the High
then the Court should not hesitate to pass order
there was some discrepancy,
case from the evidence
adduced and the Court] otherwise directs, be deemed to be part of the costs.
for inspection of ballots. In the present 97. Recrimination when seat claimed.-(1) When in an
materials collected it could not be
said that prima facie case had been
for passing an order for inspection of election petition a declaration that any candidate other than the
established from the side of the petitioner
its secrecy.-Hari Shankar Prasad v. Shahid Ali Khan, returned candidate has been duly elected is claimed, the
ballots giving go bye to
returned candidate or any other party may give evidence to
AIR 2003 Pat 12.
witness or prove that the election of such candidate would have been void
94. Secrecy of voting not to be infringed.--No if he had been the returned candidate and a petition had been
to state for whom he has
voted at
other person shall be required
presented calling in question his election:
an election.
witness Provided that the returned candidate or such other party, as
section shall not apply to such
or
[Provided that this aforesaid shall not be entitled to give such evidence unless he
other person where he has voted by open ballot).
has, within fourteen days from the date of 2[commencement of
COMMENT
the trial] given notice to [the High Court] of his intention to do
permitted lightly.-AIR so and has also given the security and the further security
Tinkering of secrecy of ballot papers cannot be
1993 SC 367.
referred to in Sections 117 and 118, respectively.
and certificate of (2) Every notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall be
95. Answering of criminatingbe questions and 3* * particulars required by
*

indemnity.-(1) No witness shall excused from answering any accompanied by the statement
matter in isue in the Section 83 in the case of an election petition and shall be signed
question as to any matter relevant to a answer to
trial of an election-petition upon the ground that the and verified in like manner.
tend to criminate him, or December, 1966).
such question may criminate or may Subs. by Act 47 of 1966, Section 42, for
the words "the Triubnal" (w.e.f. 14th
the words "the publication of the election-petition
under
that it may expose or
or
may tend to expose him to any penalty Subs. by
2 Section Act 27 of 1956, Section 52, for
90".
forfeiture. omitted by Act 27 of 1956, Section
52.
3. The words "list off
1. Ins. by Act 40 of 2003, Section 4. EL-119
290 ELECTION LAWS AND PRACTICE
Sec. 97-Syn. 1 Sec. 98 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 291

SYNOPSIS 6.
1. Adverse inference-When can be
drawn.
Recrimination-Grounds of.-Grounds that can be
urged in
2 Benefit of additional
******************"*******"****** ********************n* n b
290 recrimination.-Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishque,
3.
votes..*********************************"**-** *--********** is-***rr~******raesa .... 2 LI0 1955 SCR 1104.
AIR 1955 SC 233
Election petition of corrupt practices infer alia
against persons who were not
party to election petition.. ********* **********

******************************************************************** .290 For the

Enquiry.************* ***********************"*************************************************************************************"****" purpose of withdrawal or abandonment of part of claim. Right of
...290
5 Recounting. recrimination cannot be taken away.-lnamati Mallappa v. Desai
*********i*****"********
********************i***********
************************* **************************' ...290
AIR 1998 SC 66 at 98.
Basavaraj,
RecriminationGrounds of.. *******************************
*********i************i **sp*we*** asires.291
7. Rejection of recriminatory pelition by relurned candidate. .********.** *******************.* sda*tns. ** 291 7. Rejection of
8.
Requirement of recrimination
petition. *************************************************************************291 recriminatory petition by returned candidate.-Where
9. Who claim booth capturing was alleged but evidence adduced could not satisfactorily
can
declaration.******1******-**************** ** **********************************************nss 291
L71
1. Adverse inference-When can be establish booth capturing, the recriminatory petition was
rejected.-Hari
drawn.-Mere failure of successful
candidate to explain certain facts would not result in Shankar Prasad v. Shaid Ali Khan, AIR 2003 Pat 12.
drawing adverse inference
against him.-Brij Mohan v. Mange Ram, AIR 1985 SC 887: (1985) 2 SCC 425. 8. Requirement of recrimination petition.-A reading of Proviso to Section
2. Benefit of additional votes.-When on directions of 97 of the Act shows that the recriminator shall give notice to the High Court of
recount and
Court High general his intention to give evidence in support of the allegations in his recrimination.
scrutiny of all ballot-papers have been done, question arose if
returned candidate is entitled to benefit of additional votes in absence of If, in the recrimination such intention is explicity made there is no necessity of
a separate notice other than the recrimination petition. No form is prescribed
recriminatory petition under Section 97. Such question referred to larger
Bench.-N. Gopal Reddy v. Bonala Krishnamurty, AIR 1987 SC 831. for giving such notice. The importance is given not to the notice but to the
compliance of the provisions of Sections 117 and 118 relating to securities and
3. Election petition of corrupt
practices inter alia against persons who also to the mandate of Section 83. The recrimination is to be read as a counter-
were not party to election
petition.-Where the order holding corrupt election petition. There shall be a statement of particulars as required under
practices by such persons and declaring election of returned candidate to be void Section 83 of the Act and such petition shall be signed and verified as laid
was passed without issuing any notice to any person found and named in its down under Section 83 of the Act. It is also clear that if any corrupt practice is
judgment as having committed corrupt practice, held that order suffered from a
serious lacuna going to root of matter, therefore such order was set aside and
alleged as a ground in the recrimination it shall be accompanied by an
affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt
matter was remanded to High Court with direction to
comply with provisions practice and particulars thereof.-M.R. Copalkrishnan v. Thachady
of Section 99 and thereafter to decide the election petition afresh.-Makhan
Prabhakaran, R 1992 Ker 314 at 316
Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia, AIR 2001 SC 490 2001 (2) SRJ 44 (SC).
9. Who can claim declaration.-The Recriminator, who is not a respondent
4. Enquiry.-Where the enquiry was outside the perview of Section 97
in the petition cannot be claim to be declared as elected. Such declaration can
respondent held, entitled to dispute the identity of voters without filing any be claimed by original petitioner.-Arimardan Singh v. Chottey Lal Mishra,
recrimination under Section 97. Improper rejection of vote at polling election, AIR 1993 All 113.
held void.-Shanker Babaji v. Sakharam, AIR 1965 SC 1424.
98. Decision of the High Court.-At the conclusion of the trial
5. Recounting.-A recount can be ordered if a prima facie case is made out of an election petition '[the High Court] shall make an order
and not one mere asking for the same.-Satish Chand v. Satya Prakash Vikal,
AIR 1989 All 101. (a) dismissing the election petition; or
Where on agreement between parties for recounting and abiding by result so (b) declaring the election of [all or any of the returned
declared, the non-elected party is not entitled to take up a recriminatory candidates] to be void; or
petition and demand hearing thereon.-Satish Chand v. Satya Prakash
Vikal, AIR 1989 All 101. (c) declaring the election of 2[all or any of the returned
candidates] to be void and the petitioner or any other
Recounting is purely a matter of discretion, which is exercised only when candidate to have been duly elected
3* * *

there is sufficient ground based on evidences that same mistake has been done Subs. by Act 47 of 1966, Section 42 for the words "the Tribunal" (w.e.f. 14th December, 1966).
by Recruiting Officer.-Satish Chand v. Satya Prakash, AIR 1989 All 101
1989 All LJ 839. Subs. by Act 27 of 1956, Section 53, for the words "the retumed candidate".
3. The word "or" and clause (d) ormitted by Act 27 of 1956, Section 53.
 ELECTION
LAWS AND
PRACTICE Sec. 98-Syn. 1 Sec. 98-Syn. 11 THE
92 REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951
293
SYNOPSISs with the commission of
Scope
... ... . . . ***a*'**"'***********
*************"************************************"********
** ************r*
..292
.. corrupt practice. Petitioner is seeking relief to
effect that the election of the
1. . ~..- . . . . . . . . . . s . . a . . . . . . . . . .
returned candidate be the
**4
294
o
petitioner to have been duly elected as envisaged declared
****"***** *****

Judgment-When vitiates.. ************

to be void and the
2
of proof of.. - ******************************************************** 94
Corrupt
practice-Finding
Act. Under Section 100 under Section 98 (c) of the
Use of corrupt practices
in electíon.. aro*****s********** *a*ser ....2
294 of the Act there are
4 of ballot papers...
******************"*****************************************'**** .295
.2 election to be void which are given the grounds for declaring
5. Validity of rejection numerous. Sub-section
be declared void if (b) says that election may
1, Scope.-When
a guilty of corrupt practice
candidate is held to be any corrupt practice has been committed
done by any person other than his agent with his consent. candidate or his election by a returned
vicariously for an act agent or by any other person with the consent of the
ultimate finding to this effect has to be recorded only after notice returned candidate or his election
Hhenthe other person and an inquiry held as contemplated
agent. Petitioner is not seeking the relief of
declaration of the election to be void under sub-clause
under Section 99 to that (b) of Section 100 of the
therein, naming the other person simultaneously tor commission of such corrupt Act. He is seeking relief under sub-clause (iü)iv) of clause (d) of Section 100(1)
practice. This order is to be made at the end of the trial which is the effect of
the combined reading of Sections 98 and 99 of the Act. For this reason, deciding
of the Act declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void because of
improper reception, refusal or rejection of the votes in his favour and for non-
the election petition and making an order under Section 98 against the returned compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and of this Act and Rules.
candidate without complying with the requirements of Section 99 when the Under sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the Act, if the Court
comes to the
corrupt practice agairnst the returned candidate is held to be proved vicariously conclusion that corrupt practice committed was without the consent or
to the orders of the candidate or his election
contrary
for the act of another person by itself vitiates the judgment.-Chandrakanta agent then the Court may decide
that the election of the returned candidate is not void. Court is not called
Goyal v. Sohan Singh, AIR 1996 SC 861 at 863. to pass any order
upon
Section 98 of the Act provides that at the conclusion of trial of the election declaring the election to be void under sub-section (b) of
Section 100 (1) and (2) of the Act. Petitioner has
petition the High Court shall make an order either dismissing the election sought the relief under clause
(d) of Section 100 read with Section 101 of the Act of declaring the election of
petition or declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be
the returned candidate to be void as having been
void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected. This materially affected by the
improper reception, refusal or rejection of any votes or reception of any votes
section does not talk of recording of finding regarding the commission of the which are void or by any non-compliance with the
provisions of the
corrupt practices. Section 99 of the Act which has also been reproduced in the Constitution or of this Act or any rules or orders made under this Act with a
earlier part of the judgment says that at the time of making of an order under declaration under Section 101 of the Act to have been
Section 98, the High Court shall also make an order where any charge is made further
having polled the majority of votes.
duly elected as
in the petition of any corrupt practice having been committed at the election,
It has often been held by various Courts that law relating to trial of
recording a finding whether any corrupt practice has or has not been proved to election petition is technical in nature and until and unless a relief is claimed,
have been committed at the election, and the nature of that corrupt practice
the same cannot be granted. An indication to this maxim can be gathered from
and further the names of all persons, if any, who have been proved at the trial
Section 97 of the Act which deals with recrimination petitions. When in an
to have been guilty of any corrupt practice and the nature of that practice..
election petition a declaration that any candidate other than the returned
Allegations in support of illegalities and irregularities committed during the candidate has been duly elected is claimed, the returned candidate or any
course of counting made in certain cases may amount to and bring such
other party may give evidence to prove that the election of such candidate
allegations in the ambit of corrupt practice but where the petitioner does not would have been void if he had been the returmed candidate and a petition had
charge the respondent with the commission of the corrupt practice, the Court is been presented calling in question his election. It is further provided that the
not called upon to record a finding regarding the commission of a corrupt
returned candidate or such other party as aforesaid shall not be entitled to give
practice. In the counting hall, the counting is done by officials of the such evidence unless he has, within fourteen days from the date of
Government. Some of these officials may be gazetted officers as well. If
allegations are made that any such officer helped the returned candidate at
commencement of the trial, given notice to the High Court of his intention to
to in
do
so and has also given the security and the further security referred
the time of counting of votes, it would not be taken to mean that the assistance
Sections 117 and 118 respectively.
rendered by that officer would be a corrupt practice within the meaning of
the
Section 123 (7) of the Act for the furtherance of the prospects of that Every notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by
an election
statement and as required by Section 83 in the case of
candidate's election until and unless the petitioner makes an allegation of particulars
commission of corrupt practice charging the returned or any other candidate petition and shall be signed and verified in like manner..meaning thereby
 ELECTION LAWS
AND PRACTICE Sec. 98-Syn. 2 Sec. 99 THE
294
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951
295

a recrimination
filed, the returned candidate
petition is the conclusion arrived at by the Trial
that until and unless evidence to prove that the election of that Bhunia, AIR 2001 SC 490. Court-Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas
to give
would not be entitled
that candidate had been the returned
have been void il 5. Validity of
candidate would
had been presented calling in question his
rejection of ballot papers.-In absence of
candidate and the petitioner there any mistake or failure on the
was any evidence that
of the
election. In conclusion
it is held that the petitioner has not charged respondent Officer in the matter of absence of part Presiding Officer or Polling
Ballot papers, proviso of sub-clausesignature distinguishing mark in the
or
of corrupt practice and, theretore, was not required
No. 1 with the commission
in support of the petition as provided in Section 83 (h) of Clause 2 of Rule 56 was not
to file a separate affidavit
applicable and there was no
illegality or infirmity in the matter of rejection of
with Rule 94 (a) of the Rules and Rule 12 of the Rules and
(1) (c) of the Act read 834 Nos. of votes on that
count.-jibontara
orders of and Haryana High Court.
Punjab AIR 2002 Gau 130 at 135.
Ghatowar v. Sarbananda Sonowal,
There is no case law on this point. No direct judgment was cited at the Bar. 99. Other orders to be made
the counsel for respondent No. 1 : by the High Court.-(1) At the
Following judgments were cited by time of making an order under Section 98 '[the
also make an order- High Court] shall
"1) N.P. Ponnustvami v. The Returning Officer, etc., AIR 1952 SC 64
(2) Smt. Indira Nehru Gamdhi v. Sh. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299 2[(a) where any charge is made in the petition of any corrupt
(3) Narendra Madivalapa Kheni v. Manikrao Patil, AIR 1977 SC 2171. practice having been committed at the election,
(4) M. Kamalam v. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed, AlR 1978 SC 840.
recordin8-
(i) a finding whether any corrupt practice has or has not
(5) DhartipakarMadan Lal Aggarwal v. Shri Rajiv Gandhi, AlR 1987 SC been proved to have been committed 3[* ] at the *

1577; and election, and the nature of that corrupt practice; and
(6) U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran, AIR 1990 SC 924." (ii) the names of all persons, if any, who have been
None of these judgments is relevant to the point in discussion and that is why a proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt
detailed reference is not being made to these judgments.-Mukhtiar Singh v. practice and the nature of that practice; and]
Bal Mukand, AIR 1994 P & H 125 at 131, 132. (b) fixing the total amount of costs payable and specifying the
2. Judgment-When vitiates.?-Deciding the election petition and making persons by and to whom costs shall be paid:
an order under Section 98 against the returned candidate without complying Provided that 4[a person who is not a party to the petition
with the requirements of Section 99 when the corrupt practice against the shall not be named] in the order under sub-clause (i) of
returned candidate is held to be proved vicariously for the act of another clause (a) unless-
person by itself vitiates the judgment.-Chandrakanta Goyal v. Solan Singh,
(a) he has been given notice to appear before 1[the High
AIR 1996 SC 861.
3. Corrupt practice-Finding of proof of.-The High Court cannot make an
Court and to show cause why he should not be so
named; and
order under Section 98 recording a finding of proof of corrupt practice against
(b) if he appears in pursuance of the notice, he has been
the returned candidate alone and on that basis declare the election of the
given an opportunity of cross-examining any witness
returned candidate to be void and then proceed to comply with the requirement
of Section 99 in the manner stated therein with a view to decide at a later stage
who has already been examined by 1[the High Court
and has given evidence against him, of calling
whether any other person also is guilty or that corrupt practice for the
purpose evidence in his defence and of being heard.
of naming him then under Section 95 of the R.P. Act-Manohar Joshi v. Nitin
Bhaurao Patil, AlR 1996 SC 796. s[(2) In this section and in Section 100, the expression "agent"
has the same meaning as in Section 123.]
Election Tribunal should record findings on all issue of law and
fact.-Raj
Krishna Bose v. Binod Kanungo, AIR 1954 SC 202. Subs. by Act 47 of 1966, Section 42, for "the Tribunal" (w.e.f. 14th December, 1966).
2. Subs. by Act 27 of 1956, Section 54, for clause (a).
4. Use of corrupt practices
in election-Section 98 of the Act, 1951 deals his omitted by Act 58 of 1958,
with the consent of any candidate or agent",
with the
3. The words "by, or

declaring of election void following any or more of the ways specified Section 29.
for"no person shall be named".
therein by the High Court for use of 4. Subs. by Act 27 of 1956, Section 54,
malpractice by
the to the
party election,
on 5. Subs. by Act 27 of 1956, Section 54, for sub-section (2).