The court held that while the rules do not prescribe the manner of making applications for further particulars or additional evidence, such applications must be made formally and supported by affidavit to allow the opposing party to respond. Oral applications from the bar are insufficient. The court must be convinced that the particulars sought are necessary to clarify issues already pleaded and are not prejudicial or intended to amend or salvage the petition. Regarding preservation of election materials, the court found that it was not practical or fair to allow the petitioner to place additional padlocks on warehouses used for multiple election petitions, nor could the court itself take custody due to space constraints. Instead, the court ordered that the petitioner and 1st respondent may identify a separate warehouse for the materials, with costs and security arrangements specified, or alternatively, that additional seals be placed on the relevant ballot boxes under court supervision, with an inventory of serial numbers to be filed. The 3rd respondent was also entitled to place a seal or padlock if the first option was adopted.