JUDGMENT B. Dayal, J. - This writ petition has been filed by Sant Kumar and Abdul Rahman. They along with Prem Chand were declared elected in a three member Municipal Constituency of Tilhar on the 9th of November, 1964. Respondents Nos. 2 to 66 who were the electors in the ward filed an election petition alleging that the name of one of the candidates Mithlesh Kumar (respondent No. 68 to this writ petition) was not properly printed in the ballot paper with the result that a number of voters, were misled into believing that Mithlesh Kumar was not. a candidate and they did not vote for him. This materially affected the result of the election and prayed for the setting aside of the election. Several oilier points had also been raised but all of them have been negatived by the Tribunal and have no more been agitated in this Court. The Tribunal accepted this contention and has set aside the election on that ground alone. Against that order, the present writ petitions have been filed and the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the mistake in the name of Mithlesh Kumar was not a material one and did not amount to "non-compliance with this Act or any sale or any error, irregularity or informality on the part of the officer or officers charged with carrying out of this Act or any rules", and, in any case, such non compliance or error, if any, has not materially a affected the result of the election within the meaning of Section 19(2)(b) of the U.P. Municipalities Act under which the election has been set aside. 2. The facts, which have given rise to this controversy, are not in dispute. At the election, Mithlesh Kumar received 750 votes while the successful candidates received votes as follows: Prem Chand 935, Sant Kumar 860 and Abdul Rahman 810. The name of Mithelesh Kumar was wrongly spelt in the ballot paper. Instead of being printed in Hindi as "Mithlesh Kumar" (sic) it was printed as "Midhalesh Kumar". (sic) The relevant part of rule 36, as it then stood, was as follows: 36 (1) Every ballot-paper shall be in such form and the particulars therein shall be in such language or languages as the Director may specify. Instead of being printed in Hindi as "Mithlesh Kumar" (sic) it was printed as "Midhalesh Kumar". (sic) The relevant part of rule 36, as it then stood, was as follows: 36 (1) Every ballot-paper shall be in such form and the particulars therein shall be in such language or languages as the Director may specify. (2) The names of the candidates shall be arranged on the ballot paper in the same order in which they appear in the list of contesting candidates. 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that this Sub-rule (2) of Rule 36 has not been complied with inasmuch as the name of the candidate Mithlesh Kumar was not printed in the ballot paper correctly. It is not denied that the name, as printed, was at proper serial number at which it ought to have been, as mentioned in Sub-rule (2) above. It is also admitted that the symbol which was given to this candidate was also printed along with this name in the ballot papers. The only mistake was in the spelling, as mentioned above. On these facts, it is quite clear that Mithlesh Kumar not having withdrawn from the contest and his name having occurred at the proper serial number in the ballot paper along with his special symbol, the name of the candidate had been printed on the ballot paper as required by the rule. The only mistake was that instead of "tha" in the middle of the name, the letter "dim" had been printed. In the figure of these two letters as also in the pronunciation of these letters there is not very much difference and on the basis of this mistake alone, we are unable to say that Rule 36(2) was not complied with. 4. Section 19(2) (b) requires two conditions to be fulfilled before an election can be set aside. In the first place, there should be non-compliance with the rule and in the second place, such non compliance or irregularity should have materially affected the .result of the election. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this Court is that a small mistake in the spelling cannot be said to amount to noncompliance with the rule. In the first place, there should be non-compliance with the rule and in the second place, such non compliance or irregularity should have materially affected the .result of the election. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this Court is that a small mistake in the spelling cannot be said to amount to noncompliance with the rule. It is well settled principle of law that very minor mistake which do not really affect the substance, have to be ignored arid cannot be the basis, of any relief in a court of law. Such mistakes are liable to creep in and cannot vitiate the whole proceedings. In Ch. Subbarao Vs. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, AIR 1964 SC 1027 , where copies of the election petition had not been properly attested and were not very accurate copies, it was held that still the copies supplied substantially complied with the provisions of the rule and it could not be said that the rule had not been complied with. Another minor irregularity in impleading some non-essential parties was held not to amount to non-compliance with the rule in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Vs. Roop Singh Rathore and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1545 . 5. The contention on behalf of the respondents was that since the name of Mithlesh Kumar was not correctly written in the ballot paper, it must be held that the name of Mithlesh Kumar was not at all printed in the ballot paper and that some name was printed which was not the name of the candidate and, therefore, there was non-compliance with the rule. We are unable to accept this contention. The mere mistake mentioned above, is not enough to hold in the circumstances that the name of the candidate was not printed in the ballot paper. 6. In this view, since there was no non-compliance with any rule, the question of going into the facts and finding out whether it materially affected the result of the election really does not arise. But since the learned Counsel have advanced lengthy arguments on this question, we will consider that aspect also. The election petitioners produced two of themselves as witnesses, who stated that on account of the mistake in the name, they thought that Mithlesh Kumar was no more a candidate and they were, therefore, misled into not voting for him. But since the learned Counsel have advanced lengthy arguments on this question, we will consider that aspect also. The election petitioners produced two of themselves as witnesses, who stated that on account of the mistake in the name, they thought that Mithlesh Kumar was no more a candidate and they were, therefore, misled into not voting for him. They also stated that sixty four other election petitioners, who were not produced in evidence had also told them that they were also similarly misled. The Tribunal has accepted the statement of these two witnesses not only with regard to their own having been misled but also with regard to sixty-four other persons who were petitioners with them. We are unable to agree with this finding of the Tribunal. The matter for consideration was whether those other sixty four persons were, in fact, misled on account of this spelling mistake. This fact was in the exclusive knowledge of those sixty-four persons who did not appear in the witness-box to testify to those facts. The state-merit of the two election-petitioners, who did appear, was merely hearsay and was, therefore, irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence. The contention on behalf of the respondents is that those statements were admissible because these two witnesses were co-petitioners with the other sixty four persons and could speak about them. We do not think that their being co-petitioners with others gives them any special right as witnesses to speak about their observation from what they heard from them. In the Evidence Act there is no distinction made between the statement of co-petitioners or co-plaintiffs and other ordinary witnesses. 7. It was then contended that the provisions of the Evidence Act were not applicable to Election Tribunals. We are unable to agree with this contention either. Section 3 of the Evidence Act define a "court" as any authority "legally authorised to take evidence" and the Evidence Act has been applied to all courts. The provisions of the Evidence Act were, therefore, applicable and hearsay evidence was not admissible. The evidence of the two election-petitioners, therefore, only proves at the best that these two petitioners were misled. Apart from these two, 48 other witnesses have been believed by the Tribunal when they say that they were misled. The provisions of the Evidence Act were, therefore, applicable and hearsay evidence was not admissible. The evidence of the two election-petitioners, therefore, only proves at the best that these two petitioners were misled. Apart from these two, 48 other witnesses have been believed by the Tribunal when they say that they were misled. Even assuming that they were, the result only is that only fifty persons were misled into believing that Mithlesh Kumar was no more a candidate. On the other hand 750 persons did vote for Mithlesh Kumar and were, therefore, not misled. This does not indicate any material affect on the result of the election. It may also be noted that Mithlesh Kumar received 750 votes and even if 50 misled votes be added he would get only 800 votes and the lowest number of votes received by the successful candidates was 810 - There is, therefore, no evidence to indicate that the result of the election was, in any way, affected by this mistake. 8. We have already dictated the operative portion of the order on the 16th of August, 1966. We hereby give the seasons.