ORDER A petition has been filed for summary dismissal of the election petition under section 86 of the Representation of People's Act. 1951. A rejoinder petition has also been filed today, which is kept on the record. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. K. P. Verma, was already heard in the matter. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner today. The issue no. 5 bas been taken up for preliminary decision. 2. In the petition, a point was taken that the election petition is barred by law of limitation, as it was not filed within 45 days of the declaration of the result as required under section 81 of the Representation of people's Act, (for short 'the Act'). It appears that the declaration of the result of the election was made on 29.11.1989 and this election petition was filed on 15.1.90 and, therefore, it is alleged, that it was not filed within 45 days and as such it is barred by limitation, under section 81 of the Act. 3. In the rejoinder petition it has been stated that since 13th January, 1990 was Second Saturday and it was a complete holiday for the Court, therefore, the election petition could not be filed on that date. 14.1.90, was Sunday and, therefore, the election petition was correctly filed on the opening day i e. on 15.1.90. 4. In the rejoinder petition, a Calender of the year 1990 bas also been annexed. It is the admitted position that Second Saturday is a holiday both for the Central Government as well as State Government Offices. In the High Court, on Second Saturday, rot only the Judges do not work, but the offices are also closed and the whole compound is locked and no body can enter into the premises Therefore, it was physically impossible for the election petitioner to present the election petition on that date and even if he could have come to the High Court, he could not have filed the same, because there was no body to receive the election petition, because of the closure of the office and absence of any staff on that day This follows that Second Saturday is a complete holiday in all respect, which is also notified in the High Court Calender, published by the High Court itself. It is also admitted position that 14.1.90 was Sunday and in these circumstance, presentation of the election petition on 15.1.90, i. e. on the first opening day, must be held to be within time. 5. It should be noted in this connection that General Clauses Act, also apply in election cases, which has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case, reported in AIR-1974-S. C. 480 This means that if the relevant date is a holiday, the election petition can be presented on the following day. In this view of the matter, the election petition was correctly presented on 15.1.90 and cannot be said to barred by law of limitation. Therefore" this point urged on behalf of the respondents fails and it is rejected. 6. The next point urged on behalf of respondent no. 1, the election petition is that there was non compliance of section 82 of the Act. It was pointed out that this election petition was filed for declaration that the election of respondent no. 1, from the 53-Lohardllga, Lok Sabha Constituency be declared void. If such an election petition is filed, the petitioner is required to and as respondent only the returned candidate, but in this case not only the returned candidate, but also respondent no. 2, who is said to be the Dy. Commissioner cum Returning Officer, Gumla, bas also been added as a party respondent. Therefore, serious objection was raised on behalf of the respondent no. 1, that addition of the Dy. Commissioner-Cum-Returning Officer is in violation of the mandate given under section 82 of the Act, as only the returned candidate in such event an is a necessary party. 7. On the other hand, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had made the Dy. Commissioner-cum Returning Officer as a party only because his nomination paper was rejected by the said officer and in order to avoid future complication, he was added as party. The point therefore, for consideration is as to whether the addition of the Dy Commissioner as a party to the election petition is in violation of the terms of section 82 of the Act, and whether the election petition should be construed as bad, on that score, alone. 8. Section 82 of the Act, prescribes as who should be added as a party to the ejection petition. 8. Section 82 of the Act, prescribes as who should be added as a party to the ejection petition. The petitioner had added the necessary person namely, the returned candidate as a party respondent, but besides him he has also added the Dy. Commissioner cum-Returning Officer as a party, which was required to be done. Therefore, the question for consideration is as to whether in doing so, the action of the petitioner will amount to violation of section 82 of the Act. The answer is obviously No, as section 82 of the Act, only required the necessary person should be made a party which the petitioner has done, but in order to avoid future complication, be has also added respondent no. 2, as a party in the election petition. This follows that he has not omitted any person who is required to be added as a party, but be has added a person in excess to that and this action on the part of the petitioner does not amount to violation of section 82 of the Act, nor for that reason, the ejection petition itself cannot be treated as bad and it cannot be dismissed. 9. This point had also received the attention of the Supreme Court in the case of Murarka Radhey Shyam Vrs Roop Singh reported in A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1545, In that case, a similar argument was raised that, there was non compliance of section 82 of the Act, but the Supreme Court found that all the parties whom it was necessary to join under the provisions of section 82 of the Act, had joined as respondents to the petition, but Ballu and Balaji were in excess of the requirement of section 82 of the Act. Considering that aspect the Supreme Court in paragraph 7 of its judgment has said that if all the necessary parties have been joined to the election petition the circum stance, that a person who is not a necessary party has also been impleaded, does not amount to bread, of the provisions of section 82 and no question of dismissing the election petition under Sub rule (3) of section 90 arises. It was also pointed out that it was open to the Election Tribunal to strike out the name of the party who was not the necessary party, within the meaning of section 82 of the Act. It was also pointed out that it was open to the Election Tribunal to strike out the name of the party who was not the necessary party, within the meaning of section 82 of the Act. There afore, I find and hold that there is no noncompliance or contravention of the provisions of section 82 of the Act, and there fore, the election petition cannot be dismissed on that account alone. 10. The last point taken before me is with regard to the defect in the verification and the affidavit in the election petition, in this connection 74-E. L. R.-52, was relied upon to show that if there is defect in the verification or the affidavit, the election petition should be dismissed. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the case of Rohiteshwar Saikia-Vrs Tonu Konwar & Ors, reported in A. I. R, 1990. Gouhati-4l, submitted that it is a curable defect. Even a the Election Law Reports (Supra), it was found that if there is defect in the verification the election petition cannot be dismissed. 12. In this case, it will be relevant to take note of the verification in paragraph 3, it has been stated by the petitioner that the statements made in paragraph 1 to 9, 15, 18, 19, and 20 are true to his know ledge and those made in paragraph 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 are derived from his lawyer, Sri Arvind Kumar Lal and from the order sheet of the Returning Officer; Annexure-1 and the rest are by way of submission Similar fact is stated in the affidavit. Therefore, what has been stated in the petition is based upon his knowledge as well through the information derived from his counsel. Prima-facie, this sort of verification and affidavit cannot be said to be completely in violation of any of the provision of Rule 94 A of the Conduct of Election Rules. 13. It appears that an objection was raised with regard to Annexure-1, which is the extract copy of the certified copy of the order-sheet of the Returning Officer. It was contended that the petitioner has not disclosed in the verification or the affidavit as to in what manner he came to know about it. 13. It appears that an objection was raised with regard to Annexure-1, which is the extract copy of the certified copy of the order-sheet of the Returning Officer. It was contended that the petitioner has not disclosed in the verification or the affidavit as to in what manner he came to know about it. It was pointed out that the petitioner has stated about this Annexure-1, in the verification as well as in the affidavit, which is the extract of the certified copy of the order-sheet of returning officer, and any body who goes through it can derive knowledge from it which can be said to be his personal knowledge. It was submitted that even if there is any defect, it is a curable one, as found in the case of Rohiteshwar Saikia, (Supra), wherein in paragraph 25 of the judgment, it was found that any defect or omission in the verification can be rectified by permitting to rectified that defect or omission. The Court had relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1964 – S.C. 1545 (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has also said that the defect can be removed in the manner provided in the C.P.C. On mere perusal of the affidavit and verification, it cannot be said that there is any defect and even if there is any defect it is a curable one and can be rectified. In this view of the matter, the election petition cannot be summarily dismissed on this ground. 14. It was submitted that the learned counsel for the respondent does not press the objection raised in paragraph 12 of the petition with regard to the service of the election petition, which he has claimed to be the true copy of the petition. Since this point is not pressed. It is accordingly disposed of, being not pressed. 15. In the result, since all the points raised on behalf of the respondent have failed, I do not find that any case is made out for summary dismissal of the election petition filed by the petitioner. The election petition, therefore, shall proceed in accordance with law. This issue was accordingly decided. Put up on 21st January, 199l, as jointly prayed for. Issue decided.