Madhya Pradesh High Court
Samar Huzoor vs Priyesh Saxena on 24 February, 2026
1 MP-6181-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6181 of 2025
SAMAR HUZOOR
Versus
PRIYESH SAXENA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Hussain Ali Saify - Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
Election Tribunal of District Judge, Bhopal, whereby the District Judge
during course of trial of the election petition concerning election of
Councillor in Municipal Corporation, has allowed application for amendment
in election petition. Though the amendments sought were manifold, but the
ultimate amendment that has been allowed is correction in PAN number of
the returned candidate, which was by a clerical/typing mistake.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no
application for amendment of election petition can be entertained after the
limitation to file the election petition gets over and in the present case the
election was held in the year 2022 and the limitation got over in the year
2022 itself despite which the Election Tribunal has allowed the amendment
to be carried out in September, 2025.
3. Upon considering the aforesaid assertion, it is seen that the election
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 05-03-2026
12:18:16
2 MP-6181-2025
petition has been filed challenging the election of the present petitioner who
is respondent No.2 in the election petition. Though a number of amendments
were sought in the election petition but ultimately the Election Tribunal has
only allowed correction/amendment of PAN number of the present petitioner
from ADOPH2322R to A BOPH2322R. The aforesaid error was stated to be
by way of clerical and typing mistake and there is only difference of a single
letter. The Election Tribunal has rejected the other amendments which were
sought in the election petition but has allowed only amendment of PAN
number of petitioner.
4. In the trials of election petitions under the Representation of People
Act, 1951, there is a restriction on amendment of election petitions,
inasmuch as, material facts cannot be amended or pleaded afresh but material
particulars can be amended. The relevant Section 86 of the Act of 1951 is as
under:-
“86. Trial of election petitions.– (1) The High Court shall dismiss an
election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or
section 82 or section 117.
Explanation.–An order of the High Court dismissing an election petition
under this sub-section shall be deemed to be an order made under clause (a)
of section 98.
(2) As soon as may be after an election petition has been presented to the
High Court, it shall be referred to the Judge or one of the Judges who has or
have been assigned by the Chief Justice for the trial of election petitions
under sub-section (2) of section 80A.
(3) Where more election petitions than one are presented to the High Court
in respect of the same election, all of them shall be referred for trial to the
same Judge who may, in his discretion, try them separately or in one or
more groups.
(4) Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon application made by
him to the High Court within fourteen days from the date of commencement
of the trial and subject to any order as to security for costs which may be
made by the High Court, be entitled to be joined as a respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 05-03-2026
12:18:16
3 MP-6181-2025
Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section and of section 97, the
trial of a petition shall be deemed to commence on the date fixed for the
respondents to appear before the High Court and answer the claim or claims
made in the petition.
(5) The High Court may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as it
may deem fit, allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the
petition to be amended or amplified in such manner as may in its opinion be
necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall not
allow any amendment of the petition which will have the effect of
introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the
petition.
(6) The trial of an election petition shall, so far as is practicable consistently
with the interests of justice in respect of the trial, be continued from day to
day until its conclusion, unless the High Court finds the adjournment of the
trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.
(7) Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and
endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the
date on which the election petition is presented to the High Court for trial.”
5. Interpreting the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1951, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy
vs. Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy and others , reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1467 has held that material facts cannot be amended in view of
the restrictive clause contained in Section 86(5) of the Act of 1951. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that material facts are different from
material particulars and material particulars can be amended. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as under:-
“17. However, in the case of Sethi Roop Lal (supra), this Court has, while
distinguishing the case of introduction of material fact from that of material
particulars, and the operation of the principles of Order VI Rule 17 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in the trial of the election petitions subject to
the provisions of Act 1951 has, inter alia, observed and held as under:
“9. Coming now to the other impugned order, we find that the
learned Judge has rejected the prayer for amendment of the
petition principally on the ground that by the proposed
amendment the appellant was seeking to introduce ‘material
fact’ as distinguished from ‘material particulars’ of a corrupt
practice which was impermissible. In so doing the learned
Judge drew sustenance from the following observations made
by this Court in the case of F.A. Sapa v. Singora, (1991) 3Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 05-03-2026
12:18:16
4 MP-6181-2025
SCC 375:
“(i) Our election law is statutory in character as
distinguished from common law and it must be
strictly complied with.
(ii) There is a clear and vital distinction
between ‘material facts’ referred to in Section
83(1)(a) and ‘particulars’ in relation to corrupt
practice referred to in Section 83(1)(b) of the
Act.
(iii) Section 86(5) of the Act empowers the
High Court to allow particulars of any corrupt
practice which has already been alleged in the
petitions to be amended or amplified provided
the amendment does not seek to introduce a
corrupt practice which is not previously
pleaded.
(iv) By implication amendment cannot be
permitted so as to introduce ‘material facts’.”
10. The fasciculus of sections appearing in Chapter III of Part
VI of the Act lays down the procedure for trial of election
petitions. Sub-section (1) of Section 87 thereof provides that
subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made
thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High
Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure
applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure (‘Code’ for
short). That necessarily means that Order VI Rule 17 of the
Code which relates to amendment of pleadings will afortiori
apply to election petitions subject, however, to the provisions
of the Act and of any rules made thereunder. Under Order VI
Rule 17 of the Code the Court has the power to allow parties
to the proceedings to alter or amend their pleadings in such
manner and on such terms as may be just and it provides that
all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for
the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy
between the parties. But exercise of such general powers
stands curtailed by Section 86(5) of the Act, when
amendment is sought for in respect of any election petition
based on corrupt practice. Since Section 87 of the Act — and,
for that matter, Order VI Rule 17 of the Code — is subject to
the provisions of the Act, which necessarily includes Section
86(5), the general power of amendment under the former
must yield to the restrictions imposed by the latter.
11. Indubitably, therefore, if the amendment sought for in the
instant case related to corrupt practice we might have to
consider the same in conformity with Section 86(5) of the Act
as interpreted by this Court in the case of F.A. Sapa and
accept the findings of the learned Judge as recorded in the
impugned order; but then, the learned Judge failed to notice
that the amendments, the appellant intends to bring in his
election petition, do not relate to any corrupt practice and,
therefore, it has to be considered in the light of Section 87,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 05-03-2026
12:18:16
5 MP-6181-2025
and de hors Section 86(5) of the Act. For the foregoing
reasons the impugned order dated May 28, 1993 cannot also
be sustained.”
18. Applying the principles aforesaid to the facts of the present case with
reference to the pleadings already taken in this matter, we are unable to find
any fault in the approach of the High Court in allowing the amendment as
prayed for. This is for the simple reason that the election petitioner
(respondent No. 1) had never taken “corrupt practice” as a ground to
challenge the election of the appellant. The grounds, as noticed above, have
precisely been of improper acceptance of the nomination form of the
returned candidate and improper acceptance of invalid votes as also
improper rejection of valid votes. That being the position, the pleadings
sought to be taken by way of amendment so as to indicate that the
nomination form was not to be accepted for yet another reason, that is, for
non-compliance of the statutory requirements, cannot be said to be of
introduction of any new cause of action or new ground of challenge. It
cannot be said that the ground as sought to be pleaded does not have any
foundation whatsoever in the petition as filed; or that pleading of such
particulars would change the character of the election petition. That being
the position, we are at one with the High Court that the amendment as
prayed for was required to be allowed.”
6 . In the present case, the trial of election petition is under Section 441 of
the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and neither the Act of 1956 nor M.P.
Municipal Corporation Election Petition Rules, 1963 contains a bar similar
to the bar as contained in Section 86(5) of the Act of 1951.
7. Even if assuming that there had been such a bar, then correction of PAN
number which has already been pleaded in the election petition would only
be amendment of material particulars and not amendment of a material fact
because material fact cannot be inserted in the election petition after the
limitation to file election petition gets over but even as per Section 86(5) of
the Act of 1951, the amendment can be allowed for ensuring a fair and
effective trial of the election petition by allowing the material particulars to
be amended or amplified which would ensure fair trial.
8. In the present case, the correction of PAN number of the returned
candidate would only be amendment of material particulars and not material
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 05-03-2026
12:18:16
6 MP-6181-2025
facts because the PAN number has already been pleaded in the election
petition and a clerical mistake in correcting one letter of the ten letter/figure
long PAN number is being sought, which cannot be said to be amendment of
material fact, or insertion of a material fact.
9. Therefore, finding no error in the impugned order passed by the Election
Tribunal, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 05-03-2026
12:18:16
