https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174145 The statute confined participation in an election petition to the specific situations of withdrawal and abatement, so an elector had no general right to intervene merely because the petitioner was alleged to be colluding or acting fraudulently with the returned candidate. Withdrawal required leave of the High Court, and abatement operated only on the petitioner's death; a dismissal said to arise from non-compliance, even if allegedly induced by collusion or fraud, could not be treated as withdrawal or abatement by implication. The court held that any gap in the scheme was a casus omissus not open to judicial filling, and sustained the High Court's order. en-us Thu, 20 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:59:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174145 The statute confined participation in an election petition to the specific situations of withdrawal and abatement, so an elector had no general right to intervene merely because the petitioner was alleged to be colluding or acting fraudulently with the returned candidate. Withdrawal required leave of the High Court, and abatement operated only on the petitioner's death; a dismissal said to arise from non-compliance, even if allegedly induced by collusion or fraud, could not be treated as withdrawal or abatement by implication. The court held that any gap in the scheme was a casus omissus not open to judicial filling, and sustained the High Court's order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174145