in George Prime v Elvin Nimrod and Others.14 [33] In Ferdinand Frampton, it was noted15 that section 45(3) of the Representation of the People Act of Antigua and Barbuda,16 provides that petitions may be amended with leave. It is noteworthy that, by its express terms, section 45(3) permits amendments only to plead corrupt practices. The 2002 Representation of the People Act of Antigua and Barbuda provides that an election petition should be filed within 7 days of the results that are challenged. That period is 21 rather than 7 days in other jurisdictions in the Eastern Caribbean. [34] Mr. Mendes and Mr. Martineau submitted that the rules of pleading are strictly applied in election cases with respect to the time for filing and perfecting a petition, as well as to precision in pleading. Learned counsel cited as authority the decision of the Indian Supreme Court in Charan Lal Sahu v Giani Zail Singh17 when that Court stated as follows:18 “In these petitions, pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous so as to put the respondent on notice. The rule of pleadings that facts constituting the cause of action must be specifically pleaded is as fundamental as it is elementary…The importance of a specific pleading in these matters can be appreciated only if it is realized that the absence of a specific plea puts the respondent at a great disadvantage. He must know what case he has to meet. He cannot be kept guessing whether the petitioner means what he says… They [the petitioners] cannot be allowed to keep their options open until the trial and adduce such evidence of consent as seems convenient and comes handy. That is the importance of precision in pleadings, particularly in election petitions.” [35] Counsel also referred to Frampton v Pinard, in which the following was stated:19 “There is now a general principle of practice in civil proceedings, which is and 30, [Rawlins J). 14 Claim No. GDVHCV2003/0551 (19th March 2004) [Pemberton J]. 15 At paragraph 30 of the judgment. 16 Cap. 379 of the Revised Laws of Antigua and Barbuda 1990. 17 [1985] LRLC (Const.) 31. See also Mitbilesh Kumar v Venkataraman (1989) LRC (Const. 1); Hari Shanker Jain v Gandhi [2002] 3 LRC 562, paras 22-24. 18 At p. 42d-g. 19 By Rawlins J at paragraph 62 of the judgment. 19