Mandatory joinder in corrupt practice election petitions depends on the pleading as a whole and is not waived by delay.

In election petition pleading, a candidate accused of corrupt practice must be joined as a respondent, and the joinder requirement is mandatory. The objection of non-joinder is a pure question of law arising from the petition itself, so it is not waived merely because it was taken later in the proceedings. The pleading must also be read as a whole to determine whether it contains the essential material facts of the alleged corrupt practice; isolated grammatical fragments are not decisive. On that approach, basic facts may suffice even if further details are only matters of particulars. The note therefore emphasises the combined effect of mandatory joinder and complete pleading of corrupt practice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a candidate against whom a corrupt practice is alleged must be joined as a respondent and whether the objection based on non-joinder could be raised at a later stage; (ii) Whether the allegations in the relevant paragraph of the election petition disclosed a complete charge of corrupt practice, including the necessary material facts, against that candidate.

Issue (i): Whether a candidate against whom a corrupt practice is alleged must be joined as a respondent and whether the objection based on non-joinder could be raised at a later stage.

Analysis: The statutory scheme made joinder of every candidate against whom a corrupt practice is alleged mandatory. The duty of compliance with the joinder requirement was cast on the Court, and failure to comply attracted dismissal under the governing provision. The objection was a pure question of law arising from the petition itself and did not depend on evidence. It was therefore not barred merely because it was not taken in the written statement and was raised later during the proceedings.

Conclusion: The objection was validly raised, waiver was unavailable, and non-joinder was fatal if the petition did in fact allege a corrupt practice against the unjoined candidate.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations in the relevant paragraph of the election petition disclosed a complete charge of corrupt practice, including the necessary material facts, against that candidate.

Analysis: The pleading had to be read as a whole and not by isolating fragments or altering its grammatical sense. On a fair construction, the paragraph alleged that a named candidate and others, acting as election workers with the respondent's consent, threatened an elector with injury to prevent him from voting and canvassing for the rival candidate. Those allegations contained the essential ingredients of the pleaded corrupt practice. The distinction between material facts and material particulars was also applied: the petition contained the basic facts constituting the charge, while any further particulars such as exact place or detailed identity were matters of amplification, not essentials of the cause of action.

Conclusion: The petition disclosed a complete charge of corrupt practice against a candidate, and his non-joinder rendered the election petition liable to dismissal.

Final Conclusion: The election petition could not be sustained because it alleged a corrupt practice against a candidate who was not joined as a respondent, and the appeal consequently failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an election petition alleges a corrupt practice against a candidate, joinder of that candidate as a respondent is mandatory, the defect is not waived by delay in raising it, and the petition must be dismissed if the pleading as a whole discloses the essential material facts of the charge.

---