IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.738 of 2009 RAMASHAN OJHA, son of Singheshwar Ojha, resident of village Kumhaila, Police Station- Ishwapur, District- Saran. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Acchelal Rai, son of Sital Rai, resident of village Mahuli, Police Station Ishwapur, District, Saran. -------- For the petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Singh,Advocate Mr. Raghwanand,Advocate Mr. Ranjeet Kumar,Advocate For Respondent No.2: Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh No.1,Advocate Mr. Vitesh Kumar Singh,Advocate --- 4. 9.2.2009 I.A. No.806 of 2009 The interlocutory application has been filed for impleading as party respondents to the writ petition, those who were parties to the proceedings in the Court below, details of whom are mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the interlocutory application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for impleadment is allowed and the concerned persons are permitted to be added as party respondent Nos. 3 to 22 to the writ petition. I.A. No.806 of 2009 is, accordingly, disposed of. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and respondent No.2 The writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by Munsif-III, Chapra in Election Case No.1/38 of 2006, by which he has allowed the amendment petition dated 2.9.2008 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff- respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that no reason has been 2 assigned for accepting the said amendment after such a gross delay, which is in the face of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner is the winning candidate. The provisions introduced are meant for the purpose of preventing the plaintiff or the defendant from delaying the trial. In an election petition, a delay in the trial of the election petition always works to the advantage of the winning candidate and to the disadvantage of the election petitioner. Hence considering the intention behind introduction of the said proviso, the same cannot be literally applied to the amendment sought by an election petitioner who himself ought to be anxious to conclude the proceedings as quickly as possible, particularly when one of the prayers, as in the present matter, is to seek declaration of the election petitioner as the candidate who had won. Moreover, in the present matter certain facts and figures regarding the votes cast and received, etc. had been mentioned in the election petition and the statement had been made that the same would be subject to correction after obtaining the official report. In this regard, the present amendment petition has been sought on the basis of certified copies of Forms “kha”, 17, 20 and 21, which have been recently obtained by respondent No.2, although the respondent No.2 ought to have been more vigilant in obtaining the said documents. In the facts of the case, this Court considers the amendments to be essentially of a formal nature and to that extent does not find any infirmity in the order of the Court below in allowing the 3 amendment. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that apart from bringing the said facts and figures on the record, allegation has been made against the petitioner of collusion with the polling officials. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 points out that the allegations had been made earlier also with regard to collusion, although there is a slight change in the language used. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that at least he ought to be permitted to place his rebuttal with regard to the newly introduced facts and allegations so that the allowed amendment may not go unchallenged. This Court finds force in the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed with the directions that the petitioner should be permitted to file his rebuttal with respect to the newly introduced facts and allegations, which must be done within a period of three weeks from today and further if respondent No. 2 is permitted to adduce any evidence in support of the allegations, then the petitioner should also be permitted to adduce further evidence rebutting the same. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)