proceedings under the Act to which these Rules relate. 45 Order 1 r 2(4) of the Rules of Court reads as follows: These Rules shall not apply to proceedings of the kind specified in the first column of the following Table (being proceedings in respect of which rules may be made under the written law specified in the second column of that Table), except for the provisions specified in the third column of that Table: Proceedings Written Law Applicable Provisions 3. Proceedings under Part IV of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218). Parliamentary Elections Act, s.100. Order 63A and items 71D to 71I and 75 of Appendix B. 46 Although one particular rule was not in fact canvassed by counsel for either party, it is, in my view, of at least some relevance. It is in fact O 1 r 2(5) of the Rules of Court and of course follows directly on from O 1 r 2(4), which has been set out in the preceding paragraph. Order 1 r 2(5) itself reads as follows: In the case of the proceedings mentioned in paragraph (4), nothing in that paragraph shall be taken as affecting any provision of any rules (whether made under the Act or any other written law) by virtue of which these Rules or any provisions thereof are applied in relation to any of those proceedings. My analysis of this particular (third) issue is set out in detail below (at [99]–[109]). 47 Fourthly, Mr Chan, whilst acknowledging that in a “normal” election petition, the interest of t h e defendant was clearly important in order to confirm his or her election in the face of an application by the plaintiff, emphasised that the overriding interest was that of the nation or country itself. By a “normal” election petition, he meant one that was brought against the successful candidate in a particular constituency. According to Mr Chan, the plaintiff’s present application under s 90 of the Act was not “normal” in so far as: (a) it sought to impugn the entire General Election; and (b) it was brought against the Attorney-General and not the successful candidates in question. As regards Mr Chan’s arguments concerning the overriding national interest in proceedings under s 90 of the Act, there is, once again, an overlap with the argument from precedent inasmuch as Mr Chan relied heavily on the observations of Lord Upjohn in the Privy Council decision in the Devan Nair case (reproduced above at [35]) – especially with respect to the need for a speedy resolution of the controversy concerned. Whilst Mr Chan’s emphasis on the public interest is both valid and persuasive, he does not, in my view, pay sufficient attention to the interests of the defendant in a “normal” election petition, ie, the successful candidate, having regard to the specific language and context of the Act and the PER in general and of r 13 in particular. I shall elaborate upon this later (at [75]). 48 I turn, now to the arguments made by Mr Ravi on behalf of the plaintiff.