JUDGMENT : Om Prakash, J. This is an application by Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the returned candidate) who has declared to have been elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly from 217 Lalganj Assembly Constituency in district Azamgarh which had undergone poll on 20th May, 1991, under Sections 86 and 87 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) and under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (in brevity Code of Criminal Procedure) with a prayer that paragraphs Nos. 22 to 24, 28, 32 to 34, 36 to 41, 43, 44, 47. 48. 54 to 58, 60, 61 and 63 to 65 of the election petition filed by the opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the election Petitioner) be struck out and consequently the petition be dismissed in limine with costs. 2. The election Petitioner has filed this petition calling in question the election of the returned candidate from the aforesaid constituency on the grounds: (A) that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has been materially affected "by improper reception of void votes and improper acceptance of votes in favour of Respondent No. 1 and noncompliance with the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and the conduct of the Election Rules 1961" (for short the Rules); (B) that in fact the Petitioner has received majority of valid votes ; (C) that the returned candidate and his agents and workers with his consent "have committed the corrupt practice of booth capturing within the meaning of Section 123(8) of the Representation of Peoples Act and; (D) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practice of booth capturing committed by himself and his agents and workers with his consent," the Petitioner has received a greater majority of valid votes. Paragraphs Nos. 22 to 27 of the election petition are said to have contained a concise statement of material fact with regard to grounds 'A' & 'B' and material facts relating to grounds 'C & 'D' are said to stated in paragraphs Nos. 49 to 63. 3. Paragraphs Nos. 22 to 27 of the election petition are said to have contained a concise statement of material fact with regard to grounds 'A' & 'B' and material facts relating to grounds 'C & 'D' are said to stated in paragraphs Nos. 49 to 63. 3. By means of this application, the returned candidate has raised a preliminary objection that the election petition be summarily dismissed under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Sections 86 and for non-compliance with other provisions of the Act, inasmuch as the election petition does not contain a concise statement of material facts with regard to any of the grounds on which the Petitioner relies as required by Section 83(1) of the Act. It is urged by Sri Raja Ram Yadav, learned Counsel for the returned candidate that Section 83 of the Act is mandatory and the election petition is liable to be dismissed summarily for non-compliance thereof On the other hand, the submission of Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that paragraphs sought to be struck off by the returned candidate, contains complete material facts relating to the grounds set up in the petition and, therefore, the Petitioner can not be dismissed summarily under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Section 86. 4. Relevant pleadings on the plea of re-count are said to have contained in paragraphs Nos. 22 to 47. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties on the plea of re-count, it is necessary to state the relevant pleadings of the election Petitioner. 5. In para 24 of the petition it is stated that 509 ballot papers were issued to the voters at polling station No. 151-Kosara Primary Pathshala for cast in their votes of these two ballot papers were cancelled by the Presiding Officer himself finding them defective. Thus only 507 votes were polled at the polling station No. 151. It is pleaded that only 507 ballot papers having been issued to the voters for casting their votes, ballot papers more than 507 could not have been found in the ballot box relating to polling station No. 151. It is averred that two ballot boxes one big and another small, were used at the said polling station. It is pleaded that only 507 ballot papers having been issued to the voters for casting their votes, ballot papers more than 507 could not have been found in the ballot box relating to polling station No. 151. It is averred that two ballot boxes one big and another small, were used at the said polling station. In para 28, it is said that instead of 507, 534 ballot papers were found in the bigger box which alone was opened and thus 27 ballot papers were in excess. It is averred that small ballot box was never opened. In para 35. the details of the votes polled by each candidate are given as follows: 1. Tej Bahadur Rai 000 2. Narendra 134 3. Mool Chand 03 4. Ram Adhar Ral 04 5. Ram Narain 29 6. Ramadheen 29 7. Lalji 39 8. Laljeet 00 9. Vinod Kumar 39 10. Shree Prakash 50 11. Sukhdeo 210 12. Suryabhan 03 13. Hardeo 02. Total 516 Plus Invalid 18 Total Ballot papers found in the box 534 Para 36 runs as follows: That since the margin by which the Petitioner has been declared to have lost the election is only 24 votes whereas 27 excess ballot papers found in the ballot box relating to polling station No. 151 alone, have been counted as stated above, the result of the election in so far as it concerns the Respondent No. 1 has been materially affected If these votes are excluded from the total number of votes declared to have been received by the Respondent No. 1, he will be found to have lost the election. 6. In para 38, it is pleaded that apart from counting 27 excess ballot papers found in the ballot box at the polling station No. 151, the counting staff also counted excess ballot papers found in the ballot boxes at other polling station It is averred that excess ballot papers aggregating to 39 (27 plus 12) were counted as valid votes for the returned candidate and if they are excluded then the returned candidate would stand defeated as he won the election only by a narrow margin of 24 votes. On these pleadings, the Petitioner asserts in para 40 that "...it is a fit case and is in the interest of justice that the entire ballot papers relating to polling station No. 66, 75, 145, 151 and 173 are recounted. It will then be found that the Petitioner has in fact received a majority of valid votes and the election of the Respondent No. 1 is void and the Petitioner is entitled to be declared elected." 7. As succinctly stated the case of the election Petitioner is that 39 (27 plus 29) excess votes were illegally counted in favour of the returned candidate and that if such votes and the votes which were cast as a result of both capturing are excluded then the majority of votes would be in favour of the Petitioner and, therefore, he and not the returned candidate deserves to be declared to have been elected. 8. The question for consideration is whether the election petition lacks material facts and whether that can be dismissed summarily for that reason? 9. A hurried look at the scheme of the Act will be advantageous to appreciate the contention of the returned candidate. Section 80 of the Act states that no detection shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance With the provisions of Part-IV of the Act Section 81(1) says that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more grounds specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector. Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 mandates that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are Respondents in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the Petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 mandates that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are Respondents in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the Petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. Section 83(1) mandates that an election petition- (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the Petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the Petitioner alleges including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and date and place of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the Petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings; Proviso to Clause (c) to Section 83(1) reads that where the Petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed from in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice end the particulars thereof. Section 83(2) enjoins upon the Petitioner to sign and verify any schedule or annexure to the petition in the same manner as the petition Section 86(1) commands the High Court in preemptory terms to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or 82 or Section 117 Section 87(1) directs that subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made there under every election petition shall be tried by the High Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits. 10. Since the election petition is required to be tried by the High Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure as contained in the CPC Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC where under this application has been made by the returned candidate to strike out the unnecessary scandalous, frivolous and vexatious pleas, become relevant. Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC a plaint is liable to be rejected interalia where it does not disclose a cause of action. 11. Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC a plaint is liable to be rejected interalia where it does not disclose a cause of action. 11. Section 83(1) enjoins upon the Petitioner to give a concise statement of material facts on which he relies and to set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that he alleges. 12. What are the material facts? The word 'material' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material facts leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The function of particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. There may be some overlapping between material facts and particulars but the two are quite distinct The material facts will show the ground of corrupt practice and the complete cause of auction and the particulars will give the necessary information to present a full picture of the cause of auction. In stating the material facts it will not do merely to quote the words of Section because then the efficacy of the words 'material facts' will be lost Samant N. Balkrishna and Another Vs. V. George Fernandez and Others, (1969) 3 SCC 238 . 13. The material facts required to be stated are those facts which can be considered as materials supporting the allegation made, in other words they must be such facts as to afford a basis for the allegation made in the petition. If an election Petitioner in his election petition gives some figures as to the rejection of the valid votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the same must not be considered as an adequate statement of material facts when the Petitioner has not disclosed in the petition the basis on which he arrived at those figures. His bald assertion that he got those figures from the counting agents of the unsuccessful candidate cannot afford the necessary basis Shri Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs. Shri Kirshna Behari and Others, (1969) 2 SCC 433 . 14. His bald assertion that he got those figures from the counting agents of the unsuccessful candidate cannot afford the necessary basis Shri Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs. Shri Kirshna Behari and Others, (1969) 2 SCC 433 . 14. The pleadings relating to re-count as set up in the election petition have to be tested on the touch stone of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court It is averted by the Petitioner that only 507 ballot papers were issued at the polling station No. 151 to the voters but when one of the boxes was opened at the time of counting then 534 ballot papers were found, meaning there by that 27 ballot papers were found in excess in a single box which alone was opened. In is further averred that 12 extra votes were found at other polling stations and thus 32 (27 plus 12) extra votes were polled for the returned candidate. No basis of this averment has been disclosed. The Petitioner claims that he received a majority of votes. No basis of such averment also has been disclosed by the Petitioner, in para 35 of the petition, the Petitioner has disclosed the number of votes polled by each candidate, No basis of the figures furnished in that paragraph has been furnished. No ballot paper account which gives the details of the ballot papers received, ballot papers remaining unused, that is, not issued to the voters, ballot papers used at the polling station and ballot papers to be found in the ballot box as prescribed in Form 16 Part I by the Rules, has been filed by the Petitioner to support the figures set out in para 35 of the petition. Ballot papers account has not been filed on the specious plea that was not available and when the Petitioner asked for a copy there of he was informed in writing regarding non-availability. No such written Information sent by the authorities has been filed. Serial number of the invalid or void ballot papers has not been disclosed on the plea set up in paragraphs Nos. No such written Information sent by the authorities has been filed. Serial number of the invalid or void ballot papers has not been disclosed on the plea set up in paragraphs Nos. 7 to 14 that the seating arrangement was not satisfactory and, therefore, the candidate or the counting agents could not note down the serial number of the ballot papers No facts have been disclosed whether any written objection was raised at the time of the counting regarding unsatisfactory seating arrangement preventing a candidate or his counting agent to note down the serial number of the ballot papers. Rule 63(1) of the Rules states that after completion of counting, the returning officer shall record in result sheet in Form 20 the total number of votes polled by each candidate and announce the same. Form No 20 has not been filed to support the figures as stated in paragraph no 35 of the petition Sub-rule (2) says that after such announcement has been made, a candidate or in his absence his election agent or any of his counting agent may apply in writing to the returning officer to count the votes either wholly or in part stating the grounds on which he demands such re-count. In para 46 of the petition it is averred that at the conclusion of the counting, an application was made by the Petitioner for re-count of all the rejected ballot papers, but the same was rejected on the ground that the candidates had given certificate during the re-count that the counting work was being done satisfactorily and as such there was no justification for ordering re-count. No such application and order passed there on by the returning officer has been filed Also no facts are stated that any objection was filed with regard to excess votes when the ballot box was opened at the polling station No. 151. In para 43, it is averred that 18 ballot papers were rejected "and if these 18 rejected ballot papers are within the serial number of ballot papers issued to the votes, it means that all the excess ballot papers as found in the bigger box were cast by booth capturing and they should not have been counted." This is an hypothetical averment. On the one hand, the Petitioner says that all the excess votes found in the ballot box at the polling station were polled for the returned candidate, but in para, 43, the Petitioner proceeds on the hypothesis that re-count should be ordered if 18 rejected ballot papers were within the serial number of ballot papers issued to the voters. It means that the Petitioner is not sure whether 18 rejected ballot papers were also polled for the returned candidate. 15. In Ram Sewak Yadav Vs. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1249 the Respondent (Kidwai) one of the candidates at the election, made a petition for declaring the result of the Appellant void He claimed that he would be able to establish his case on grounds (1) and (6) from the ballot papers and submitted that an order for inspection of the ballot papers be made and that he be permitted to show from the ballot papers that the returning officer had improperly received, refused and rejected the ballot papers and that on a true count he would have received a majority of valid votes and that he was entitled to be declared duly elected The Tribunal rejected the application for inspection. Thereafter this High Court accepted the request, of the Respondent and allowed the inspection of the ballot papers. In appeal the Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court and upheld the order of the Election Tribunal saying : "there can, therefore, be no doubt that at every stage in the process of scrutiny and counting of votes the candidate or his agents have an opportunity of remaining present at the counting of votes watching the proceedings of the returning officer, inspecting any rejected votes, and to demand a recount. Therefore, a candidate who seeks to challenge an election on the ground that there has been improper reception; refusal or rejection of votes at the time of counting, has ample opportunity of acquainting himself with the manner in which the ballot boxes were scrutinized and opened, and the votes were counted. Therefore, a candidate who seeks to challenge an election on the ground that there has been improper reception; refusal or rejection of votes at the time of counting, has ample opportunity of acquainting himself with the manner in which the ballot boxes were scrutinized and opened, and the votes were counted. He also opportunity of inspecting rejected ballot papers, and of demanding a re-count It is in the light of the provisions of Section 83(1) which require a concise statement of material facts on which the Petitioner relies and to the opportunity which a defeated candidate had at the time of counting, of watching and of claiming a re-count that the application for inspection must be considered. 16. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Dr. Jagjit Singh Vs. Giani Kartar Singh and Others, AIR 1966 SC 773 , in which it was held that where a prayer is made by the Petitioner for the inspection of the ballot boxes, the Tribunal must inquire whether the application made by the Petitioner in that behalf contains a concise statement of the material facts on which he relies. Vague or general allegations that valid votes were improperly rejected or invalid votes were improperly accepted, would not serve the purpose which Section 81(1)(a) has in mind. An application made for the inspection of ballot boxes must give material facts which would enable the Tribunal to consider whether in the interest of justice, the ballot boxes should be inspected or not In dealing with this question, the importance of the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be ignored, and it is always to be borne in mind that the statutory rules framed under the Act are intended to provide adequate safeguard for the examination of the validity or invalidity of votes and for their proper counting. 17. From these authorities, it is amply clear that the request for re-count should not be allowed as a matter of course and care must be taken to see that the election Petitioners do not get a chance to make a roving or fishing inquiry in the ballot boxes so as to justify their claim that the returned candidate's election is void. In the case in hand, no material facts have been stated in any of the paragraphs relating to plea of re-count and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to fish out the evidence to support his averments which are based on conjectures and surmises that he received a majority of votes. Paragraphs Nos. 22 to 47 are, therefore, struck out under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC as they contained frivolous and vexatious pleadings. 18. The facts relating to the corrupt practice of booth capturing which is made a separate offence with effect from 15-3-1989 u/s 123(8) of the Act, inserted by Act of 1989 are said to have been stated in paragraphs Nos. 49 to 63. It is averred that the Respondent No. 1 himself and his agents and workers with his consent committed the practice of booth capturing at the aforesaid polling station No. 151 at about 4.45 P.M. on 20th May. 1991. To elaborate, the Petitioner pleaded that the returned candidate was set up by Bahujan Samaj Party (B S.P.) with elephant as election symbol; that two ballot boxes one bigger and another smaller were provided at polling station No. 151; that till about 1 P.M. about 350 votes were polled; that the returned candidate accompanied by 25-30 persons, most of whom were armed with guns, came to the polling station No. 151 on 20th May in two jeeps at about 4.45 p.m. that jeeps were parked about 50 yards away from the polling station and then he with his companions went to the polling station; that having ranched nearer to the polling booth he commanded his companions to cast as many votes as possible and to finish up this job as soon as possible; that on his call companions took the entire polling station under their control and seized ballot papers from the polling staff and then put the mark by voting seal on about 50-60 ballot papers on the symbol of elephant. In para 64, the Petitioner then pleaded that "if the votes obtained by the Respondent No. 1 by the aforesaid corrupt practice are excluded from the votes said to have been received by the Respondent No. 1, then also the Petitioner will be found to have received a majority of valid votes. In para 64, the Petitioner then pleaded that "if the votes obtained by the Respondent No. 1 by the aforesaid corrupt practice are excluded from the votes said to have been received by the Respondent No. 1, then also the Petitioner will be found to have received a majority of valid votes. As such the election of the Respondent no 1 is void and the Petitioner is entitled to be declared duly elected as a member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly." 19. The names of the persons who accompanied the returned candidate have not been disclosed. It is not stated as to which companions of the returned candidate possessed arm and who of them were without arm which of the companions took control of the aforesaid polling booth; who of them seized the ballot papers from the polling staff; who comprised the polling staff and what were their names; what was the registration number of jeeps, the returned candidate and his companions traveled by; who were polling agents at the polling station at that time; whether or not there were any voters at the time of incident and if so, who were they. It is also not stated as to which actual words were used by the returned candidate to order his companions and to threaten the polling staff. Serial number of the ballot papers which are said to have been seized by the returned candidate and his companions from polling staff have not been disclosed. In Daulat Ram Chauhan Vs. Anand Sharma, (1984) 2 SCC 64 , it was held that "the allegation of corrupt practice must be so clear and specific that the inference of corrupt practice will irresistibly admit if no doubt of qualm. It cannot be left to time, chances or conjecture for the court to draw an inference by adopting an involved process of reasoning. As a logical consequence it follows that where the allegation of fraudulent practice is open to two equal possible inferences, the pleadings of corrupt practice must fail...." In order to constitute corrupt practice the necessary particulars, statement of facts and essential ingredients that must be contained in the pleadings are ; (1) Direct and detailed nature of corrupt practice as defined in the Act, (2) details of every important particular must be staged giving the time, place., names of persons, use of words and expressions etc. (3) it must clearly appear from the allegations that the corrupt practices alleged were indulged in by (a) the candidate himself (b) his authorised election agent or any other person with his express or implied consent. Applying this authority to the case in hand, it must be held that the entire pleadings relating to booth capturing as set out by the election Petitioner are devoid of material facts or cause of action. In Dr. Jagdish Singh v. Kartar Singh (supra) the Supreme Court held in para 15 at page 779 that the charge of corrupt practice is in the nature of quasi criminal charge. The proof of the charge has a double consequence; the election of the returned candidate is set aside and he incurs subsequent disqualification as well Therefore, when a charge of this kind is framed against a returned candidate, it has to be proved satisfactorily. To establish a quasi criminal charge Section 83(1) of the Act enjoins upon the election Petitioner to furnish all possible material facts on which he relies and to set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that he alleges. 20. Proviso to Section 83(1) requires that where the Petitioner alleges any corrupt practice the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in prescribed form in support of allegation of such corrupt practice and particulars thereof. To comply with this provision the Petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the statement relating to grounds 'C' & 'D' of the election petition pertaining to commission of the corrupt practice of booth capturing within the meaning of Section 123(8) of the Act, given in paragraphs 48, 50, 51/60, 61 (partly), 62, 63 (partly) 64 to 71 of the election petition "are true to my personal knowledge and statement made in paragraphs Nos. 49, 52, 59, 61 and 63 (partly)" are based on information received from my workers, agents and supporters which I believe to be true". The affidavit simply states that some of the paragraphs are true to personal knowledge of the Petitioner and other paragraphs are based on information which he received from his workers, agent and supporters. It is not stated in the affidavit as to which part of the paragraphs is based on the personal knowledge and which part of them is based on other than personal knowledge. It is not stated in the affidavit as to which part of the paragraphs is based on the personal knowledge and which part of them is based on other than personal knowledge. Similarly it is not stated in the petition as to which portion of the paragraphs stared to be based partly on information and which portion of such paragraphs is based otherwise. Also, it is not disclosed as to which information was received from which workers, agents and supporters. Very vaguely, the Petitioner has stated that some of the paragraphs are based on information which he received from his workers, agents and supporters. Affidavit so vaguely sworn is no affidavit and that is no compliance with Section 83(1). 21. The election petition must be dismissed under the provisions of CPC if the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83(1) to incorporate the material facts and particulars relating to corrupt practice in the election petition are not complied with. The CPC applies to the trial of an election by virtue of Section 87 of the Act. Since CPC is applicable, the court trying the election petition can act in exercise of the powers of the CPC including Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11(a). In short, the election petition is liable to be dismissed for want of material facts or cause of action under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. It self without resorting to Section 86 in which Section 83 does not find berth. Section 86 is not the only provision for dismissing the election petition. Election petition involving a charge of corrupt practice or the other grounds is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of CPC if that does not furnish the material facts and particulars relating to the charge of corrupt practice. It is settled law that the omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and that an election petition without material facts relating to corrupt practice is not an election petition at all. For the reasons, paragraphs Nos. 49 to 65 referring to the charge of corrupt practice are liable to be struck out under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. 22. For the reasons, paragraphs Nos. 49 to 65 referring to the charge of corrupt practice are liable to be struck out under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. 22. Then the submission of the counsel for the returned candidate is that the copy of the election petition which was supplied by the election Petitioner to the returned candidate is not a true copy within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act, inasmuch as, page 11 of the said copy which is attested to be true copy by the election Petitioner, is wholly unreadable and illegible. Section 81(3) directs that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are Respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the Petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition (emphasis supplied). A copy of the flections petition which was supplied to the returned candidate is filed as Annexure No. 2 to the rejoinder-affidavit filed by the returned candidate and from perusal of page 11 thereof, the submission of the returned candidate cannot be doubted that the same is wholly unreadable and illegible, though every page of it is attested to be a true copy by the election Petitioner. The question for consideration is whether a copy of the election petition supplied to the returned candidate can be said to be a true copy when one page thereof, namely, page 11 is wholly illegible A copy of the elect in petition, Annexure No. 2 to the rejoinder affidavit is a Photostat copy. Whereas the election petition filed is a typed one and wholly legible, page 11 of the copy of the election petition cannot be said to be a true copy of page 11 of the election petition, as the former cannot be read at all and nothing is decipherable there from. There is no difference between a wholly unreadable or illegible page and a blank paper. As there is nothing to read in a blank paper, similarly nothing can be read from a wholly illegible typed page despite best efforts. What is a true copy A true copy is one which is absolutely similar and identical to the original material. There is no difference between a wholly unreadable or illegible page and a blank paper. As there is nothing to read in a blank paper, similarly nothing can be read from a wholly illegible typed page despite best efforts. What is a true copy A true copy is one which is absolutely similar and identical to the original material. Page 11 of the election petition filed is wholly legible, but page 11 of the copy supplied to the returned candidate, is wholly illegible and that cannot be said to be a true copy in any case of the original page 11 in the election petition, therefore, the submission of the returned candidate that election petition is liable to be dismissed u/s 86(1) of the Act as that does not comply with the provision of Section 81(3) is correct and has to be accepted. Supply of a copy of the election petition is not an idle formality and the underlying idea of the requirement of supplying a true copy u/s 81(3) is to enable the Respondents to file a full and complete reply of the election petition and that is possible only when a true copy of the election petition is supplied to them. When a portion of the election petition is illegible it cannot be read at all then no reply much less effective reply, can be filed by the Respondents. An illegible or a defective copy of the election petition will always prevent the Respondents from filing an effective reply or the objections. Where a serious charge of corrupt practice is levelled against the returned candidate which has a double consequence, as already stated, it is all the more necessary for the election Petitioner to ensure that absolutely a true and correct copy of the election petition is given to the returned candidate to enable him to file reply against the charge and to save himself from being disqualified under the provisions of the Act, This is why Section 81(3) has been enacted in a mandatory form. The Petitioner having failed to supply a true copy of the petition to the returned candidate, the petition is liable to be dismissed for that very reason u/s 86(1). No duty is cast upon the Respondents to procure a correct copy of the petition in order to file reply thereof from the Petitioner or from other source. The Petitioner having failed to supply a true copy of the petition to the returned candidate, the petition is liable to be dismissed for that very reason u/s 86(1). No duty is cast upon the Respondents to procure a correct copy of the petition in order to file reply thereof from the Petitioner or from other source. Section 81(3) enjoins upon the Petitioner himself to supply a correct and true copy to the Respondents. In Rajendra Singh v. Smt. Usha Rani AIR 1984 SC 956 , the Supreme Court held: A perusal or Sections 81(3) and 86 of the Act gives the impression that they do not contemplate filing of incorrect copies at all and if an election Petitioner disregards the mandate contained in Section 81(3) by filing incorrect copies, he takes the risk of the petition being dismissed in limine u/s 86. It is no part of the duty of the Respondents to wade through the entire record in order to find out which is the correct copy. If out of the copies filed, the Respondent's copy is found to be an incorrect one, it amounts to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 81(3) which is sufficient to entail a dismissal of the election petition at the behest. 23. For the reasons, paragraphs Nos. 49 to 65 of the election petition being bereft of material facts which do not disclose the cause of action relating to the plea of booth capturing and they being unnecessary, frivolouss and vexatious are struck out under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC paragraphs 22 to 47 relating to the plea of recount having been already struck out, no other paragraphs survives in the petition for decision on merits. 24. In the result, the application is allowed and the election petition is dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC and u/s 86 of the Act for noncompliance with the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act with costs assessed at Rs. 500/- which shall be paid from the security amount. Balance of the security amount shall be refunded to the Petitioner upon presenting a proper application.