JUDGMENT D.P. Sood, J.-—The petitioner contested for the seat of Member of Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 33, Kutlehar Constituency alongwith other candidates. A Notification relating to 68 Assembly seats in Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha for holding the general elections was issued in the month of October/November 1993, 2. The material facts, necessary for the decision of the preliminary issues, vis-a-vis the election of the aforesaid assembly constituency, may be stated as under: 3. Election programme with respect to this constituency was as under: 1. Last date of acceptance of nomination papers in the office of the Returning Officer in District Courts Building, Una. 16-10-1993 between 11-00 a m. to3-00 p. m. 2. Last date for scrutiny in the same office. 18-10-1993 at 11-00 a. m. 3. Last date of withdrawal of nomination papers. Before 3-00 p. m. on 20-10-1993. 4. Date of polling. 9-11-1993 between 7-00 a.m. to 500 p m. 5. Counting of votes. 27-11-1993 ; and 6. Declaration of results. 28-11-1993. Parties to the instant election petition were the contesting candidates. The petitioner represented Congress (I), whereas respondents I to 4 represented the Bhartiya Janta Party, Janta Dal, Bahujan Samaj Party and Independent respectively. 4. The total number of votes polled in the said constituency were 32,346. Out of these 276 votes were declared as invalid. Shri Ram Dass, respondent No. 1, was declared elected having secured 14,846 votes against his nearest rival Shri Ram Nath Sharma, the petitioner, who secured 13,874 votes. In other words, respondent No. 1 secured 972 votes more than the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No. 1 to this constituency by way of this election petition, registered as Election Petition No. 2 of 1994 praying : (a) that the election of Shri Ram Dass, respondent No. 1 (returned candidate), be declared as void by holding him guilty of committing corrupt practices, as envisaged under section 121 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); (b) re-poll be ordered in respect of this constituency ; and (c) after granting relief (a), action in accordance with law be initiated against respondent No, 1, 5. A challenge to the validity of the election of the returned candidate has been made by the petitioner on the grounds ; firstly, that the election has been materially affected by non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution of India and the Act as also Rules framed thereunder and secondly, that respondent No 1 is guilty of committing corrupt practices within the meaning of the Act as envisaged under section 123 thereof. These grounds are based on the allegations that expenditure return to the tune of Rs. 9,740 filed in prescribed form and accompanied by affidavit of respondent No. 1, is neither a true nor a faithful statement of the amount spent by him. In fact, the expenditure incurred by respondent No 1 has been in excess of the maximum statutory limit of Rs 20,000 inasmuch as a sum of Rs 15,000 inclusive of Rs. 5,000 was paid by him (respondent 1) to Shri Jagmohan Sharma of Sharma Arts, Mubarkpur Road, Amb (Una) (Annexures PB and PC) on 16-11-1993 and 18-10-1993 respectively, for the purpose of painting and writing of appeals on walls as also banners to the electorate to vote for respondent No. 1 and his party. It is averred that the said expenditure was incurred in connection with his election by the returned candidate, The disclosure of this fact was made by Shri Jagmohan Sharma aforesaid on 1-1-1994 and his assistants also, who executed the aforesaid work. 6. That two receipts of the expenditure of Rs. 8,400 filed with the return (Annexure PA) indicating the expenditure incurred on vehicles hired from S/Sh. Rajinder Singh and Dinesh Kumar, are undated and thus account of election expenses in respect of each item of expenditure from day to day activity, lacks material particulars, as envisaged under Rule 86 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (shortly hereinafter referred to as the Election Rules), the detail of which is given in para 10 (e) and 10 (f). 7. 7. That an untrue and false appeal with respect to the character assassination of the petitioner calculated to prejudice his prospects in the election was made to the electorate, asking the latter to vote for respondent No. 1 who caused thousands of photo copies of a defamatory, absolutely false and untrue news item appearing in "UTTAM HINDU" dated 22-9-1993 (Hindu daily being published from Jalandhar) to be published and distributed, in the form of hand-bills, himself as also through his election agents and party workers, amongst the electorates of this constituency in between 6th to 8th November, 1993, knowing fully well that the statement contained therein was untrue, patently false, defamatory and related to the character assassination of the petitioner, which if published and distributed, would prejudice his prospects. In terms of said news item, respondent No 1 also made a direct appeal to the electorate to vote for him by making a statement that character of petitioner was not good inasmuch as he was habitual of taking bribe and sheltering criminals. Respondent No. 1 resorted to the above-said mode despite knowing the fact that the petitioner had an unblemished record as a social worker and before entering into politics, he had served in the Indian Navy for 8-1/2 years as Dental Operating Room Assistant as also be being a disciplined individual possessing examplary character, held the Office of Chairman of the Forest Corporation from 197, to 1982 and that of Deputy Speaker of the H. P. Legislative Assembly during 1989-90. The petitioner has detailed the said facts from para 11 (a) to 11 (g) of the petition. 8. Notice of election petition was issued to the respondents. Respondents 2 and 4 absented, despite due service. Substituted service was effected upon respondent No 3 in accordance with Order 5, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but he also did not appear. Thus, respondents 2 to 4 have been proceeded exparte. 8. Notice of election petition was issued to the respondents. Respondents 2 and 4 absented, despite due service. Substituted service was effected upon respondent No 3 in accordance with Order 5, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but he also did not appear. Thus, respondents 2 to 4 have been proceeded exparte. Only Shri Ram Dass, respondent No. 1 (the returned candidate) has resisted and contested the election petition, by raising various preliminary objections on the grounds : (i) that the copies of the election petition, supplied to him (respondent 1) do not tally with the contents of the original election petition, inasmuch as in the original election petition and the index, affidavit has been placed/shown at pages 18 to 21, whereas in the copy supplied, it has been shown to have been placed at pages 32-35, which pages are non-existent. The copy does not depict true contents in terms of section 81 of the Act; (ii) that the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of necessary parties as envisaged under section 82 of the Act ; (iii) that the Election Petition lacks in material facts ; and (iv) that the verification of the petition and affidavit annexed therewith is not in accordance with the requirement of section 83 (c) of the Act. 9. On merits, the detailed facts pertaining to the violation of the Articles of the Constitution and provisions of the Act as also relating to the commission of corrupt practices by respondent No. J, much-less by his election agents and party workers, have categorically been denied. Respondent 1 contends that the expenditure accounts submitted by him are true and correct. The documents annexed with the petition by the petitioner in relation thereto are stated to be forged documents, in connivance with Shri Jagmohan Sharma, who is stated to be a supporter of the petitioner. So far as the plying of the vehicle No. HP-02-3598 is concerned, it is contended that the same was engaged only for one day The publication and distribution of the alleged hand-bills or payment of the alleged amount towards the painting and writing of appeal to vote for respondent No. 1 on the banners and walls or raising slogans etc. in this behalf, have emphatically been denied. AH the informants, referred to in paras 10 and 11, are contended to be staunch supporters of the petitioner himself. in this behalf, have emphatically been denied. AH the informants, referred to in paras 10 and 11, are contended to be staunch supporters of the petitioner himself. Respondent 1 categorically denies the causing of photo-stat copies of the news item or publishing or distributing thereof either himself or through his election agent or party workers in the manner, alleged by the petitioner. He further categorically denies the incident alleged to have taken place on 6-11-1993 or 8-11-1993. S/Sh Rabhubir Singh, Bhajan Singh and Bhag Singh are stated to be supporters of the petitioner. They further are alleged to have been introduced with an oblique motive to create false evidence at a later stage. They being sympathisers of the petitioner, alleged to have visited the petitioner for "expressing their stock with respect to his defeat". It is contended that their names and particulars about whereabouts, have not been disclosed The allegation with respect to attempt on the part of respondent No 1 to cause irreparable loss or damage to the person of the petitioner or attempt by way of publishing or distributing defamatory and false statements with a view to assassinate his character, have also been denied. Respondent 1 has also refuted that the petitioner has unblemished record as a social worker. The factum of his having held service in the Indian Navy, has beer denied for want of knowledge. Respondent 1 contends that petitioner having been defeated in the election, should accept his defeat gracefully, rather than trying to create false evidence. In nutshell, respondent has denied allegations with respect to commission of corrupt practices According to him, neither any statement was published nor distributed or circulated by him or his associates nor he did anything for the purpose of adversely affecting the prospects of the petitioner or with a view to improve his own prospects in the elections by adopting unfair means. 10. In his rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated the allegations made in the election petition and controverted the contentions raised by the respondent No. 1 As regards preliminary objection No. 1, it has been alleged that section 81 requires that opposite parties, arrayed as respondents to the election petition, should not be misled by any pleading or averment so made in the original petition. Mere clerical or typographical mistakes in the petition or index thereof, is not covered by the provisions of the Act nor it makes the petition untenable in the eyes of law. The contention that false evidence has been attempted to be created by the petitioner through his supporters, has been emphatically denied. 11. On the pleadings of the parties, vide orders dated 24-5-1994 and 1-6-1994, this Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the copies of the election petition supplied to respondent No. 1 do not depict the true contents of the original petition as envisaged under section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, if so, its effect ? OPR I. (Note—As per order dated 1-6-1994, section 81 is deemed to have been substituted for section 83 of the Act). 1 (a). Whether the election petition lacks in material facts ? If so, its effect ? OPR 1. 1 (b). Whether the affidavit and verification of the petition is not in accordance with the requirement under section 83 (c) ? If so, its effect ? OPR 1. (Both issues framed on 1-6-1994). 2. Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of necessary parties as envisaged under section 82 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 ? OPR 1. 3. Whether the expenditure by respondent No I, Shri Ram Dass. exceeds the limit of Rs. 20,000 as alleged in paras 10 (a) to 10 (f)? OPP. 4. In case, issue No. 3 is decided in the affirmative, whether the expenditure beyond the limits and non-disclosure thereof under section 86 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 has materially affected the election of the petitioner and the same amounts to corrupt electoral practices having been committed by respondent No. 1 in terms of section 123 (6) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ? OPP. 5. Whether respondent No 1 got published the pamphlets containing defamatory statements in respect of the personal character and conduct of the petitioner and distributed the pamphlets thereof as alleged in paras 11 (a) to I 1 (g) of the Election Petition in terms of section 123 (4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ? QPP, 6. Relief. 12. It may be stated that Issues 1, 1 (a), 1 (b) and 2 have been treated as preliminary issues. Mr. QPP, 6. Relief. 12. It may be stated that Issues 1, 1 (a), 1 (b) and 2 have been treated as preliminary issues. Mr. R, K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent No 1, in his statement separately, recorded, has raised no objection with respect to the filing of the petition, scrutiny thereof by the Registry and receipt of the copy of the petition out of the two copies filed by the petitioner from the record of the instant election petition, annexures and affidavits as also application for translation supported by affidavit (pages 1 to 39). He admitted the receipt of two copies of the election petition through summons served upon him. He further stated that both copies, so received, tally with each other, word by word. He has tendered one copy out of those two, in evidence which has been exhibited as R-l in support of the preliminary issues. 13. The statement of Shri D. D. Sood, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has also been recorded. In view of the statement of Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, learned Counsel for the petitioner bas not led any evidence in rebuttal. 14. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire record. As such, now I proceed to decide the preliminary objections issue-wise. Issue No. I : 15. This issue is to the effect as to "whether the copies of the election petition supplied to respondent No. 1 do not depict the true contests of the original petition as envisaged under section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, if so, its effect ? OPR 1". 16. Both parties have relied upon the copy of the original petition (R-l), admittedly supplied to respondent 1 in the instant lis. Shri R. K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 1, in his statement separately recorded raised no objection with respect to the filing of the petition, scrutiny thereof by the Registry and receipt of the copy of the petition (R-l), annexures and affidavits as also application for translation supported by affidavit (pages 1 to 39). 17. In view of the pleadings and the above said evidence, adduced by the parties, the point for determination is as to whether requirement of section 8! 17. In view of the pleadings and the above said evidence, adduced by the parties, the point for determination is as to whether requirement of section 8! (3) has been complied with or not, The principal submission of Shri S P. Jain, learned Counsel for respondent No 1 is based on the language employed in section 81 (3) of the Act, read in the light of the directions contained in section 86 (!) which casts on this Court a duty to dismiss an election petition which does not conform to the requirements of the former, In particular, he laid stress on the use of the imperative shall" in section 81 (3) when denoting the requirement of "attestation" "under the petitioners signatures" of the copy bearing the signature being a "true copy". It is in this connection, that he points out that the provision for properly attested copies of the petition accompanying the petition, was introduced by the amendment effected in 1961, with two-fold objects ; first to save the time and inconvenience which the previous procedure casts on the Election Commission, of itself to make copies for service on the respondents ; and secondly by this means to expedite the conclusion of a trial of an Election Petition. As per him, in case respondents on whom the copies of the election petition are served, if compelled to make inquiries to satisfy themselves from the record, whether the copies were true one without the same being asserted to be so on their face, the underlying object brought about by 1961 amendment, would be entirely frustrated. He submits firstly, that the copy in question (R-l) does not tally page to page, line to line and word to word. It is pointed out that in the Index annexed with the petition, the pages referred to therein do not tally with that of the original Election Petition or its copy Ex. R-l. Secondly, that the name and stamp of the Oath Commissioner before whom the affidavit is stated to have been sworn in, has also not been mentioned in the copy (R-l). R-l. Secondly, that the name and stamp of the Oath Commissioner before whom the affidavit is stated to have been sworn in, has also not been mentioned in the copy (R-l). Thus, respondent No. 1 does not know whether the said affidavit has been at all sworn in or not and if so, before whom and with what designation, thirdly, that the petitioner has also not supplied the translated version of the documents which are in Hindi and fourthly, that though the original election petition bears the signatures of the petitioner and his lawyer but copy (R-l) supplied to respondent No. 1 does not bear the signatures of either of them. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of Mithilesh Kumar Pandey v. Baidyanath Yadav and others, AIR 1984 SC 305 ; lqbal Singh v. Avtan Singh and others, 1993 (2) PLR 255 and Purushottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati and others, AIR 1992 Bom 227. 18. On the contrary, Shri D D JSood, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that requirement of section 81 (3) has substantially been complied with. This Court has only to see as to whether on the facts stated above, there is or not a sufficient and substantial compliance with the aforesaid section. 19. There is no dispute that the petitioner has complied with the following requirements : (i) The petition has been accompanied by the requisite number of copies ; (ii) That each page of those copies that accompanied the petition, annexures, affidavit etc. annexed therewith, bore the signatures of the petitioner in token of the fact that the same are the true copies of the original petition as required under section 81 (3) of the Act. 20. In the present case, the crucial question under the aforesaid issue that falls for consideration is ; the effect of inconsistency in pages of the Index of both the original petition as also copy supplied thereof (Ex. R-l). Thus, the question arises whether Index forms part of the Election Petition ? The answer, in my opinion, would be obviously in the negative. Index is required to be annexed with the petition under the High Court Rules and Orders for the purpose of facilitating the Registry to know as to what documents have been annexed with the petition and if so at what pages. The answer, in my opinion, would be obviously in the negative. Index is required to be annexed with the petition under the High Court Rules and Orders for the purpose of facilitating the Registry to know as to what documents have been annexed with the petition and if so at what pages. In addition, petition is not only accompanied by power of attorney, process, special copies, RAD covers, address forms and list of reliance etc. It is not in dispute that the Election Petition is accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form and that the requisite number of copies of the petition alongwith affidavit were filed with the election petition. It is also not in dispute that the copies of the affidavit filed with copies of petition are attested by the Election Petitioner under his own signatures to be true copies of the affidavit. The copy of the original petition alongwith affidavit supplied to respondent 1 (Ext. R-l)is not disputed, A reading of sections 81 and 83 of the Act, nowhere requires the giving of the pages on the petition, affidavit, annexures or its copies. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that "Index" forms integral part of an election petition. Even otherwise, the Registry has scrutinised all the documents filed by the petitioner. There is also no objection raised by the Registry with respect to the compliance of the requirement of the Rules relating to the filing of the petition in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders. Accordingly, I see no cogent ground to question the correctness of the endorsement with respect to the filing of the required number of copies according to the pages given in the election petition, accompanied with the affidavit and annexures. It clearly lends support to the inference that the petition did not suffer from the lack of compliance with the procedural requirement. 21. Adverting to the main surviving controversy between the parties under this issue which relates to the effect of omission to give particulars about the officer, administering oath to the election petitioner and his endorsement in the copy of the affidavit supplied to the appellant and non-mentioning of the names of the petitioner or his lawyer in the copy Ex. 21. Adverting to the main surviving controversy between the parties under this issue which relates to the effect of omission to give particulars about the officer, administering oath to the election petitioner and his endorsement in the copy of the affidavit supplied to the appellant and non-mentioning of the names of the petitioner or his lawyer in the copy Ex. R-l supplied to respondent No. 1, suffice it to state that it does not, in any way, proves to be fatal to the maintainability of the election petition 22. The Honble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumar Pandeys case (supra), has laid down the following principles : "(1) That where the copy of the election petition served on the returned candidate contains only clerical or typographical mistakes which are of no consequence, the petition cannot be dismissed straightway under section 86 of the Act. (2) A true copy means a copy which is wholly and substantially the same as the original and where there are insignificant or minimal mistakes, the Court may not take notice thereof (3) Where the copy contains important omissions or discrepancies of a vital nature, which are likely to cause prejudice to the defence of the returned candidate it cannot be said that there has been a substantial compliance of the provisions of section 81 (3) of the Act. (4) Prima facie, the statute uses the words "true copy" and the concept of substantial compliance cannot be extended too far to include serious or vital mistakes which shed the character of a true copy so that the copy furnished to the returned candidate cannot be said to be a true copy within the meaning of section 81 (3) of the Act, and (5) As section 81 (3) is meant to protect and safeguard and sacrosanct electoral process so as not to disturb the verdict of the voters, there is no room for giving a liberal or broad interpretation to the provisions of the said section." 23. In the light of the principles laid down by the apex Court, it appears that what is material is the form and the contents of affidavit pertaining to the allegations and particulars of corrupt practice in the election petition. In the light of the principles laid down by the apex Court, it appears that what is material is the form and the contents of affidavit pertaining to the allegations and particulars of corrupt practice in the election petition. The procedural formalities of administration of oath and endorsement on the affidavit about the completion of the formalities cannot, therefore, be said to be the contents of the affidavit and their non-production in the copy of the affidavit cannot be taken to be fatal to the maintainability of the election petition, Section 81 (3) of the Act speaks of copies of petition and provides attestation of every copy as a true copy of the petition A petition means a petition conforming to the requirement of section 83 of the Act Neither section 81 (3) nor section 83 (I) anywhere provides that the endorsement of the officer administering oath or endorsement of the name of the petitioner and his counsel would form part of the contents of the affidavit or of the affidavit or that the copy of the petition or affidavit filed under section 81 (3) must show or reproduce such endorsement. The non-mentioning of the name of the petitioner or his lawyer or that of the Oath Commissioner in the petition of the affidavit, cannot be taken as a serious or vital mistake which shed the character of a true copy as to mis-lead the opposite party in taking his defence nor such omissions or discrepancies can be considered to be of such a vital nature which are likely to cause prejudice to the defence of the returned candidate, In fact, a true copy means a copy which is wholly and substantially the same. Such like omissions or discrepancies in the copy arc to be deemed as insignificant or minimal mistakes of which this Court, in my opinion, should not take notice 24. In the case of Purushottam (supra), the affidavit alongwith the election petition suffered from the absence of endorsement of the Notary to the effect "affirmed and signed before me", his designation and the stamped endorsement regarding the affirmation It is not exactly the case here. In the instant proceedings, only the name of the Oath Commissioner has not been referred to in the copy Ex. In the instant proceedings, only the name of the Oath Commissioner has not been referred to in the copy Ex. R-l supplied to respondent No. 1> However, no such objection has been raised by the Registry that the affidavit is either not in prescribed proforma or it has not been affirmed by an Oath Commissioner, in that view of the matter, it is not an omission of a vital nature which is likely to prejudice the returned candidate in his defence nor the perusal of the reply filed by the respondent 1 to the petition, indicates the way in which such omission of the name of Oath Commissioner, had in-fact, prejudiced his case. E\-en otherwise, I have not been able to agree with the reasonings so adopted, inasmuch as substantial compliance with the requirement of section 81 (3) is the prime consideration. 25. In Rajendra Singh v. Smt. Usha Rani, AIR 1984 SC 956, no doubt, the apex Court has laid down that : "This being the position, it is manifest that the appellant did not receive the correct copies as contemplated by section 81 (3) of the Act. The respondent has also not been able to prove that the copies served on the appellant were out of the 10 corrected copies which she had signed and filed. It appears that in view of a large number of the copies of the petition having been filed, there was an utter confusion as to which one was correct and which was not. It is obvious that if an election petitioner filed a number of copies, some of which may be correct and some may be incorrect, it is his duty to see that the copy served on the respondent is a correct one, A perusal of sections 8! (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 under section 86. It is no part of the duty of the respondent to wade through the entire record in order to find out which is the correct copy. It is no part of the duty of the respondent to wade through the entire record in order to find out which is the correct copy. If out of the copies filed, the respondents 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." 26. Had the name and stamp of the Oath Commissioner been given in the copy, it would not have, in any way, by itself authenticated the fact that such person is legally authorised to attest the affidavits. The affidavit has been attested to be a true copy by the petitioner under his own signatures. The object of such attestation is that in case the affidavit is found to be improper or false in any manner, the petitioner undertakes to be penalised in a civil as also criminal action when initiated by the opposite party. 27. As regards the case of Iqbal Singh (supra), the learned Judge has simply followed the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Purushottam (supra) With respect, for the same reasonings, I am unable to agree with the observations laid down therein On the contrary, I am in full agreement with the reasonings given by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gangaram Bendil v. Rashmi Parihar and others, Respondents, AIR 1987 MP 208 28. I am fortified in taking this view by the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of F. A. Sapa and others v, Singora and others, (1991) 3 SCC 375, wherein it has been laid down that: "Section 81 (1) does not debar photocopying but Rule I of the Rules says that it shall be typewritten or printed". The underlying idea in providing that the election petition shall be typewritten or printed is to ensure that the document is legible. There is no complaint that the document which is admitted as an election petition and the copies thereof are not legible Therefore, the photocopy can be treated as an original petition when it otherwise complies with the requirement of law. As regards the requirement of attestation, all that section 81 (3) requires is that the copy should be attested by the petitioner to be a true copy of the petition under his own signature. As regards the requirement of attestation, all that section 81 (3) requires is that the copy should be attested by the petitioner to be a true copy of the petition under his own signature. The requirement of this part of the provision is met by each copy having been signed at the foot thereof by the concerned petitioner, No particular form of attestation is prescribed ; all that the sub-section enjoins is that the petitioner must attest the copy under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. By certifying the same as true copy and by putting his signature at the foot thereof, the petitioner of each election petition had clearly complied with the letter and spirit of section 81 (3) of the R P. Act," 29. Another challenge by the respondents pertains to the fact that the translated copies of certain documents which are an integral part of the pleadings of the petitioner, have not been supplied 30. Record shows that at the time when election petition was filed, it was accompanied by an affidavit and also annexures in Hindi, besides an application seeking permission to get the annexures in Hindi translated through the official translator of the Court at his (petitioners) expenses. There is no dispute about the supply of annexures in Hindi which were annexed with the petition to respondent No 1. Thus, it is not a case of the non-supply of the annexures, referred to in the body of the election petition, which incurs the penalty of dismissal. Rather, the supply of the translated version thereof in the language of the Court (English language) was beyond the control of the petitioner at the relevant time. Even otherwise, the said annexures do not constitute an integral part of the pleadings, inasmuch as the contents of the documents relating to the amount of expenditure had been set out in the election petition In that view of the matter, the receipts with respect to the payment of electoral expenses to certain persons, amount merely to material by which the allegations with respect to untrue statement of expenses having been filed by the respondent No. 1 without conforming to the mandatory Election Conduct Rules, are intented to be proved. 31. 31. Thus, the cumulative effect of the entire discussion is that I find no substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for respondent 1 on this aspect of the case. Issue 1 is decided accordingly. Issue 1 (a) 32. Before I proceed to consider this issue, I think it necessary to bear in mind the nature of the right to elect, the right to be elected and the right to dispute elections and the trial of the election petition The right to contest election or to question the election by means of an election petition is neither a common law nor fundament right, instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions of the Act. This is well settled by catena of decisions of the apex Court, more specifically detailed and considered in the case of Narain Chand Prashar v. Prem Kumar Dhumal AIR 1993 HP 84, by brother Devinder Gupta, J These decisions have settled the legal position that outside the statutory provisions, there is no right to dispute an election, The Act is a complete self contained Code within which any right claimed in relation to any election or an election dispute, must be found. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the extent permissible by section 87 of the Act. The Scheme of the Act shows that an election petition can be questioned under the Statute as provided by section 80 on the grounds as contained in section 100 of the Act. Section 83 lays down a mandatory provision in providing that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts and set forth full particulars of corrupt practice The pleadings are regulated by section 83 and it makes it obligatory on the election petitioner to give the requisite facts, derails and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude. If the election petitioner fails to make out a ground under section 100 of the Act, the petition must fail at the thresh-hold. If the election petitioner fails to make out a ground under section 100 of the Act, the petition must fail at the thresh-hold. Allegations of corrupt practice are in the nature of criminal charge, it is necessary that there should be no vagueness in the allegations so that the returned candidate may know the case, he has to meet, if the allegations are vague and general and the particulars of corrupt practice are not stated in the pleadings, the trial of the election petition cannot proceed for want of cause of action. The emphasis of law is to avoid a fishing and roving inquiry. The object underlying the Act, thus, imposes a duty on the Court to scrutinise the pleadings relating to corrupt practice in a strict manner. Section 98 read with section 99 indicates that once the machinery of the Act is moved by means of an election petition, charges of corrupt practice, if any, raised against the returned candidate, must be investigated. On conclusion of the trial, if the Court finds that a returned candidate or any of his election agent, is guilty of commission of corrupt practice, he or his election agent, as the case may be, would be guilty of an electoral offence, incurring disqualification from contesting any subsequent election for a period of six years. 33. Section 83 (1) (a) stipulates that every election petition shall contain a concise statement of the "material facts" on which the petitioner relies That means, the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a complete cause of action, must be concisely stated in an election petition. Section 83 (1) (b) next requires an election petitioner to set forth full "particulars" of any corrupt practice alleged against a returned candidate. These "particulars" are obviously different from the "material facts" on which the petition is founded and are intended to afford to the returned candidate an adequate opportunity to effectively meet with such an allegation. The underlying idea in requiring the election petitioner to set out, in a concise manner, all the "material facts" as well as the "full particulars* where commission of corrupt practice is complained of, is to delineate the scope, ambit and limits of an inquiry at the trial of an election petition. 34. The corrupt practices and electoral offences are mentioned in Part 7 of the Act. 34. The corrupt practices and electoral offences are mentioned in Part 7 of the Act. Chapter I of the said Part deals with corrupt practices and contains section 123 whereas Chapter III thereof enumerates electoral offences, and penalties therefor, and contains sections 125 to 136, Section 123 (4) with which mainly I am concerned in the present election petition reads as follows : to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidates election.” It is obvious from the aforesaid provisions of section 123 (4) that for a publication to constitute the corrupt practice (a) it must be a statement of fact ; by (i) a candidate, or (ii) his agent, or (iii) any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent ; (b) the statement must be false or the candidate must believe it to be false or should not believe it to be true ; (c) the statement should refer to the personal character and conduct of another candidate and (d) that it must be reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that other candidates election. The further provisions of the Act which are necessary to be noted are those of sub-sections 0) (b), (1) (d) and (2) of section 100. They read as under : "100. Grounds for declaring elections to be void.—(I) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion— (a)............ (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c)............ (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected—- (i) -.......... (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or (iii) .......... (iv)......... . the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the High Court, a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent of any corrupt practice but the High Court is satisfied— (a) ............. (iv)......... . the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the High Court, a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent of any corrupt practice but the High Court is satisfied— (a) ............. (b)............ (c) ....... (d) ............ then the High court may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void.” The aforesaid provisions of section 100 show that where the corrupt practice is committed not by the candidate or his election agent or any otter Son with the consent of the candidate or his election agent but by an agent other than the election agent and in his interest, and the corrupt practice by such agent has materially affected the result of his election the High Court is enjoined to declare the election of the candidate to be void sub-section (2) of section 100 enacts a rider to sub-section (1) thereof and states that even if the agent has committed the corrupt practice in the interest of the returned candidate, if the High Court is satisfied that the sari corrupt practice was not committed by the candidate or his election agent and every such corrupt practice-was committed contrary to the order and without the consent of the candidate or his election agent and that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practice at the election, and that in ail other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents, the High Court may decide that the elect on of the returned candidate is not void. 35. With this statement of law in mind, I would consider the various paras of the election petition to determine as to whether it contains a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner has relied or whether in the alternative, it discloses any cause of action. The averments contained in the election petition are based on different causes of action under two heads : (A) NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT AS ALSO RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER ; 36. The averments contained in the election petition are based on different causes of action under two heads : (A) NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT AS ALSO RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER ; 36. Under this head, the allegations relate to the incurring or authorising the electoral expenditure beyond the maximum limit of election expenses in H. P Assembly Constituency, i. e. Rs 20,000 in contravention of sections 77 and 123 (6) of the Act as also Rule 90 of the Election Rules, Averments with respect to this aspect are contained in paras 10 (a) to 10 (f). As per detail given in paras 10 (a) to 10 (c), the respondent I filed an untrue return containing statement of electoral expenses (Annexure PA) in the sum of Rs. 9,740, inasmuch as the same is much in excess of the maximum limit of Rs 20,000 permitted as authorised expenditure for election to H. P. Legislative Assembly Constituency under the Act, Rules and the Notification issued thereunder As per petitioner, firstly, respondent 1 did not disclose a sum of Rs 15,000 incurred as electoral expenses of painting, writing of appeals and slogans on walls as also banners to the electorate to vote for him (respondent 1) (and his party throughout 33f Kutlehar constituency Shri Jagmohan Sharma of Sharma Arts, Mubarakpur Road, Amb (Una) who was engaged by respondent 1, for this purpose, received final payment of Rs. J 5,000 on 1641-1993 by adjusting a sura of Rs 5,000 already received by him on 18-10-1993, as per Annexures PB and PC respectively, Allegedly, said Shri Sharma himself and through his assistants executed the said work Petitioner also alleges that the entire information was disclosed to him by said Jagmohan Sharma at Amb on 1-1-1994, AND secondly, as per detail given in para 10 (e), the electoral expenditure incurred on hiring of vehicles by respondent 1 from S/Sh. Rajender Singh and Dinesh Kumar have been shown in the Return (Annexure PA) filed by respondent No I. However, the two receipts in support of the said claim are undated and thus, contrary to Rule 86 of the Election Rules and on this count too, the statement of expenditure contained in the Return filed by respondent No 1 is not a true statement of electoral expenses. It is averred that two vehicles HP 02-3593 and HP02-2677 hare been hired from 20-10-1993 to 9-11-1993." The former is shown as belonging to Shri Dinesh Kumar of Village and Post Office Bangana, but only a payment of Rs, 400 has been shown against this vehicle despite its engagement for the above said period as disclosed in the Return, Thus, respondent 1 has concealed/ withheld electoral expenditure incurred by him to the tune of Rs. 7,600. Petitioner alleges that S/Sh Malkiyat Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Momaniar and Trilok Chand Sharma, Panchayat Samiti, Bangana, besides others had seen the vehicles being plied throughout 3 J, Kutlehar constituency during the above said period in connection with the election of respondent 1. Both these persons are also stated to have informed the petitioner on 31-12-1993 which information he claims to have believed to be true and correct. Further, it is alleged that both the vehicles had banners, displaying the name of respondent 1, his party symbol and there were loud-speakers affixed on the top of the vehicles from which announcements/appeals were being made to the voters to vote for respondent No. 1. B. COMMISSION OF CORRUPT PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 123 OF THE ACT : 37. The allegations in paras 11 (a) to II (g) of the petition on this count, relates to the publication and distribution of a statement of fact which is false and which he (respondent 1) either believed to be false or did not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner and which statement was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioners election. It would be appropriate to set out the particulars of the allegations under head B in full : "(a) That a news item appeared in UTTAM HINDU dated 22-9-1993 (Hindi daily being published from Jalandhar) in which inter alia the following words were used against the petitioner :— "MILI JANKARI KE MUTAB1K SHRI RAM NATH PAR KARAMCHARIYON KE TABADLON PAR PA1SE BATORNE, KUTLEHAR VIDHAN SABHA KASHETRA MAIN HUE KATA1 BALATKAR KE KESON KE MUR-ZAMON KO PANAH DENE KE BATON KO LOGON KE BEECH CHARCHA KA VISHAY BANI RAHI." A reading of this statement would show that it is defamatory, absolutely false, sullies the character of the petitioner. Copy of the original news item is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure PD to this. Copy of the original news item is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure PD to this. (b) That respondent No. 1 caused thousands of photo copies of this news item to be published and on 6th, 7th and 8th of November 1993 respondent 1 alongwith his election agents and party workers distributed the photo copies amongst the electorate of 33-Kutlehar constituency of this news item underlining the specific portion as mentioned hereinabove knowing fully well that the statement contained therein was neither true, it was patently false and there was no ground to harbour any belief that any part of the statement as aforesaid was true. An appeal to vote for respondent 1 was made on this basis to the prejudice of the prospects of the petitioner. These hand bills do not contain any print line of the person who photocopies the material. The news item was published by photo-copying and further distributed in the form of hand bills on 6th, 7th and 8th of November 1993 in all the villages of 33-Kutlehar constituency throughout the day and night by respondent 1 personally, Shri Pawan Kumar, son of Shri Dhani Ram, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Sohari, Shri Bachiter Singh, son of Shri Jamit Singh, resident of village Kehlwin and Shri Suresha Nand, resident of village and PO Chowki Maniar. Respondent 1 alongwith persons as aforementioned, were travelling together in vehicle No. HP-02-2677 on the dates aforementioned, carrying the material and distributing to the electorate at large in villages Ambehra, Jole, Talnerha, Chadoli, Thanakalan, Mandli on 8-11-1993 during the evening hours i. e, after 5.00 p. m. On 6-11-1993 the material was distributed by all the aforementioned persons including respondent 1 in the evening hours after 5,00 p. m. in villages Arloo, Hatli, Dhundla and Lathiani. On 7-11-1993 a procession was organised by fihartya Janta Party at Bangana. The procession was together to support for respondent No. 1. The starting point of the procession which disbursed to various villages, Panchayat Circles in 33, Kutlehar constituency was Bangana The processionists for various villages started assembling and leaving at Bangana between 11.00 a m and 12 00 noon. The processionists/rallyists proceeded to all the various villages carrying with them material above mentioned in the form of photo copies underlining the words as mentioned in sub-para (a) above. Copy of the hand bill is marked as Annexure PE to this petition. The processionists/rallyists proceeded to all the various villages carrying with them material above mentioned in the form of photo copies underlining the words as mentioned in sub-para (a) above. Copy of the hand bill is marked as Annexure PE to this petition. This news item in the form of hand bills was published and distributed by the workers of the Bhartya Janta Party with consent and authority of respondent No. 1 among all the electorate ; (c) That the incident of 8-11-1993 when the material as aforesaid was distributed and a direct appeal was made to the electorate to vote for respondent 1 on the appeal and statement made that the character of the petitioner was not good, he was the man who was habitual of taking bribe and sheltering criminals, the information was given to the petitioner by Shri Onkar Singh, Ex-Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Ambrehra, Shri Atma Ram, Samiti Member, resident of village Rajnal, P. O. Ambrera Shri Atma Ram, Samiti Member, resident of village Bajnal, Post Office Ambrera, Shri Parma Nand, Ex-Up-Pradan and Ex-Petty Officer of Indian Navy of village Jol, Post Office Bhalaun on 28-11-1993 and 29-11-1993 at the residence of the petitioner. They informed him that respondent No, 1 had resorted to these means to gain votes for himself; (d) That incident of 6-ll-i993 the information that respondent No. 1 alongwith his agents and party workers were indulging in the character assination of the petitioner, was given to the petitioner at his residence again on 28 and 29-11-1993 by Shri Jagdish Chand, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Jassana, Shri Mehar Chand, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Lathiani and Shri Dhani Ram, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Tanoh ; (e) That the incident of 7-11-1993 information was conveyed to the petitioner again on 28 and 29-11-1993 by Capt, (Retd.) Raghubir Singh, Ex Chairman Block Development Committee, Bangana, Shri Bachan Singh, DivnL Forest Officer (Retd.) VPO Bangana and Shri Bhag Chand Namberdar, VPO Takoli. The petitioner humbly submits that a number of people visited him on 28 and 29-11-1993 expressing their shock that the petitioner had lost the election and also informed him that respondent 1 had indulged in the acts as aforementioned indulging in the character assassination of the petitioner? The petitioner humbly submits that a number of people visited him on 28 and 29-11-1993 expressing their shock that the petitioner had lost the election and also informed him that respondent 1 had indulged in the acts as aforementioned indulging in the character assassination of the petitioner? solely for the purpose of gaining votes for himself; (f) That the petitioner humbly submits that the act of respondent No. 1, his supporters with his active connivance and his party workers with his consent in causing to be published by photo copies the news item Annexure PD above and farther distributing it amongst the electorate, fully knowing that the statements of facts made therein are false and respondent 1 knew them to be false not believing the statements to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner constitute corrupt practices within the meaning of section 123 (4) of the Act and are sufficient in law to have the election of respondent 1 declared as void and set aside. Irreparable loss and damage was caused to the petitioner inasmuch as his personal reputation, his estimation in the eyes of the electorate of 33-Kutlehar constituency, amongst his friends and supporters has been considerably lowered. The damage caused is irretrievable. The allegations made are false, without any basis in fact, the damage caused to the character of the petitioner is irretrievable. The petitioner has been elected from 33-Kutlehar constituency twice i e. 1977—1982 and 1985—1990. The petitioner was also Chairman of the Forest Corporation from 1979 to 1982 and Deputy Speaker of the H. P, Legislative Assembly during 1989-90. The petitioner has an unbiamished record as a social worker. In addition he has, before entering politics, served in the Indian Navy for a period of 8 years and 6 months as Dental Operating Room Assistant He was discharged from the Navy on 26-9-1972. The petitioner has an unbiamished record as a social worker. In addition he has, before entering politics, served in the Indian Navy for a period of 8 years and 6 months as Dental Operating Room Assistant He was discharged from the Navy on 26-9-1972. His character was certified as exemplary and he was commended as a well disciplined individual It was further certified that his efficiency was "superior and he was a javinal character After leaving the Indian Navy, when the petitioner entered politics, he was elected unopposed President of Gram Panchayat Dhiungli, he was founder member of the Ziia Sainik Board, Una and remained a member till 1992 He is the President of the Rural Labour Cell INTUC from 1987 till date, State Chairman of "Essential Commodities and Co-operative Cell" of the Congress Party from January 1993 till date, Member of State Executive Committee of Kisan Congress from January 1993 till date, and Member of the Executive Committee of the District Congress Committee, Una from December 1992 till date There has been no blame on the character of the petitioner from his birth till today but for the false allegations made by respondent No, 1 ; and (g) That the statements published, distributed and circulated by res pondent No 1 as submitted hereinabove, were for the purpose of adversely affecting the prospects of the petitioner and calculated to improve the prospects of respondent 1 the effect of such statements would produce on an average voter with a view to dissuade them from voting for the petitioner.” 38. The allegations in these paras have been replied by respondent 1 in the corresponding paras 10 (a) to 10 (f) and 11 (a) to 11 (g)B As regards the engagement of vehicle No. HP-02-3593, it is contended that n was engaged only for one day and not for any other period. Otherwise, the use or engagement of both the vehicles during election campaign of respondent 1 have been admitted by him. Besides denying the truth and correctness of the remaining allegations made in both the paras, it is contended by respondent No. 1 that the said allegations are highly vague and are bereft of material facts. It is stated that allegations in paras 10 (b) and 10 (c) have made a somersault in the same breath. On the one hand, petitioner alleges payment of Rs. It is stated that allegations in paras 10 (b) and 10 (c) have made a somersault in the same breath. On the one hand, petitioner alleges payment of Rs. 15,000 on 16 11-1993 but then under para (c) he refers to payment of Rs. 10,000 on the said date and adjustment of another amount of Rs 5,000 on a previous date. It is pointed out that information allegedly was given to him on 1-1-1994 much after the publication of the result and details in respect of this allegation could have been easily collected by the petitioner with respect to place where payment was made or who drove the vehicle, in which village and what were day to day slogans written on the paintings or the walls etc, when the payment was made at Rs. 400 and to whom ? As per respondent 1, it is not stated as to on what date or at what place, in which villages and on how many walls or banners, paintings or appeals or slogan were written or who wrote the same, what were those slogans or appeals ? It Is also pointed out that payment is alleged to have been made after the date of polling i e. 1641-1993 whereas polling date was 9-11-1993. How the petitioner is in possession of the receipt, has also been attacked, as in the normal course, the receipt should have been in possession of respondent 1, had these electoral expenses been incurred by the latter. It is not stated in the said para as to who were making announcements or appeals to the electorate through loudspeakers affixed on the top of the vehicles to vote for respondent 1. 39. As regards the publication and distribution of the news-item the entire allegations involving respondent 1, his election agent or partymen, have been denied Even its publication in "UTTAM HINDU is denied for want of knowledge Alternatively, it is stated that the same had been published in the Hindi daily on 22-9-1993, much prior to the announcement of the election programme with which respondent 1 had nothing to do. The said publication being defamatory or being absolutely false or the fact that it sullies the character of the petitioner is also stated to be wrong Further, the truth and correctness of the factual of preparation of photo copy of the news item by respondent 1 and its distribution during election campaign in any manner alleged by the petitioner on the respective dates and in the villages, referred to therein or the use of the vehicles for the purpose of carrying the material for distribution, have categorically been denied. Respondent 1 has also refuted the allegation of publication and circulation or distribution of hand-bills by respondent 1 himself or his election agent or any other person As per respondent 1, the informants named in paras 10 and 11 have been introduced by the petitioner only with a view to create false evidence at a later stage. According to him, said persons are petitioners supporters and belonged to his party. It is stated that the names, address and the places of the so called sympathisers as detailed in para II (e), who visited the petitioner for "expressing their shock* have not been disclosed In crux, the respondent 1 has denied the allegation of violation of the provisions of Constitution or the Act or the Rules framed thereunder as also the commission of any electoral corrupt practice as alleged. According to him, petition is not only bereft of material facts, but it is also lacking particulars in various respects. 40. Sh S. P. Jain, learned Counsel for respondent No 1, submitted that in paragraph 10, the allegations are bereft of material facts inasmuch as neither the dates, places or names of villages where appeals, slogans were painted on the banners or writings were written on the walls etc, throughout 33, Kutlehar constituency by Jagmohan Sharma or his assistants, nor names of the persons who executed the day to day activities in this behalf alongwith the above said particulars as to the dates or the number of banners or number of walls, have been disclosed by the petitioner. Similarly, names of publisher or the names of election agent or party workers who distributed the photo copy or the hand-bills to the electorate alongwith the villages where the same were distributed date-wise, have also not been disclosed. Similarly, names of publisher or the names of election agent or party workers who distributed the photo copy or the hand-bills to the electorate alongwith the villages where the same were distributed date-wise, have also not been disclosed. It is also submitted that the name of the supporters, driver of vehicle No. HP-02-2677 carrying the material (handbills) for distribution to the electorate at large or the place where the said material was printed out or published, are not mentioned The learned Counsel submits that the allegations are totally wanting in particulars due to which nothing is shown that said corrupt practices have been committed by respondent 1 with his consent/authority. In the first instance, the two paragraphs are liable to be struck off In the alternative, if both the paras are closely scrutinised, they do not disclose any cause of action According to him, the persons named in various sub-paras of paras 10 and 11 are petitioners own supporters and belonged to his party and they have intentionally been named to create false evidence, so that at a later stage, they may be put forward as witnesses by the petitioner as his convenience in support of the allegations, Lastly, Shri Jain pointed out that even the date on which respondent No. 1 filed his nomination paper, has not been mentioned in the petition. As such, this omission is also fatal to the maintainability of the petition. 41. On the contrary, Shri D. D. Sood, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that details in the aforesaid paras alongwith its sub-paras, are sufficient in themselves to put respondent 1 on his guards to raise the defence. It is pointed out that respondent 1 has freedom of speech under Art, 19 of the Constitution to criticise the political character of the petitioner, but he has no right to touch his personal character or his conduct during the election campaign on the basis of statement of facts which are false to his (respondent ls) knowledge or which he believes to be untrue. It is contended that as per respondent 1, the news item detailed in para 11 (a) is neither defamatory, untrue nor it sullies the character of the petitioner. It is contended that as per respondent 1, the news item detailed in para 11 (a) is neither defamatory, untrue nor it sullies the character of the petitioner. The learned Counsel fairly and squarely concedes that particulars with respect to the assistance sought for through the election agent or party workers of respondent 1 in respect of publication or distribution of the handbills or their names having not been stated in the petition for want of knowledge, he confines his claim with respect to the commission of electoral corrupt practices visa-vis respondent 1 only as per details given in paras 10 (a) to 10 (f) and 11 (a) to 11 (g) As regards the photo stat process in the preparation of handbills, it is pointed out that it has no print line of the persons and as such, the petitioner cannot know the name of the persons from whom the handbills have been got published or to whom the payment has been made or the number of copies which have been prepared. As regards the non-disclosure of the date when respondent 1 filed his nomination paper, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the allegations of commission of electoral corrupt practices or violation of the Constitution, Act or rules framed thereunder, pertain to the period commencing from 1840-1993 to 16-11-1993, i. e. the period which was part of the election programme. It is pointed out that respondent 1 had filed his nomination paper on or before 16-10-1993, the last date for acceptance of nomination paper and he having been duly nominated, admittedly, contested the election. Thus, he was and is a candidate. The mere non-mentioning of the date on which he filed his nomination paper, is not material to the real controversy arising in between the parties to the instant lis. 42. Before I proceed to deal with the main allegations, let me determine the controversy as to whether non-mentioning of the date of filing the nomination paper by respondent 1 in the petition is fatal to the maintainability of the petition. This proposition gives rise to the question since when a person become a "candidate" in terms of section 79 (b) of the Act. Section 79 (b) defines "candidate" as a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. This proposition gives rise to the question since when a person become a "candidate" in terms of section 79 (b) of the Act. Section 79 (b) defines "candidate" as a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. This controversy has been dealt with in two cases decided by the Honble Supreme Court. The first decision is in the case of Nongthombam Ibomcha Singh, Appellant v. Leisangthem Chandramani Singh and others, AIR 1977 SC 682, in which it has been held that a person becomes a candidate from the date on which he files his nomination papers. (The Judge Bench Decision) The subsequent decision is that of Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba (Two Judge Bench Decision), (1994) 2 SCC 392, wherein it has been held that : ".............all sub-sections of section 123 of the Act referred to the acts of (a) "candidate" or his election agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. The substituted definition completely excludes the acts by a candidate upto the date he is nominated as a candidate......." In other words, according to the latest view the allegations relating to the period anterior to the commencement of the candidature, cannot be relied upon to establish corrupt practice pro prio vigore. There is a conflict in between the two decisions of the same Court. However, the earlier case being a larger Bench, I am bound by the view laid down by it, in view of Article 141 of the Constitution In other words, a person becomes a candidate from the date of filing of nomination paper. In the instant case, mere non-mentioning of the date of filing of nomination paper by respondent 1, cannot be considered to be fatal to the maintainability of the election petition. Admittedly, respondent 1 continued to be a candidate since the date of his filing of nomination paper. It is not an omission or a discrepancy of a vital nature which is likely to cause prejudice to the defence of respondent No. 1. 43. Now I proceed to decide the other controversial points. 44. As already observed that section 83 of the Act, like the Code of Civil Procedure, contains a distinction between material facts and material particulars. It is not an omission or a discrepancy of a vital nature which is likely to cause prejudice to the defence of respondent No. 1. 43. Now I proceed to decide the other controversial points. 44. As already observed that section 83 of the Act, like the Code of Civil Procedure, contains a distinction between material facts and material particulars. The distinction between the material facts and material particulars is absolutely important since different consequences may flow from a deficiency of material facts and particulars in the pleadings. Failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action, an incomplete allegations of such a charge is liable to be struck off under Order 6f Rule 16, C. P. C and if the petition is based solely on those objections which suffer from lack of material facts, the petition is liable to be summarily rejected. The legal position is settled that an election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine at the initial stage, if it does not disclose any cause of action. (See, Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR 1976 SC 744 ; Charan Lai Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh, AIR 1984 SC 309 Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 and Bhagwati Prasad Dixit Ghorewala v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1534. Now a cause of action consists of all facts which it is essential for a petitioner to allege and establish. In other words, the bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the petitioner a right of some relief against the opposite party. All the primary facts, which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action are material facts. In other words, the bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the petitioner a right of some relief against the opposite party. All the primary facts, which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action are material facts. A number of decisions of the apex Court have been cited at the bar by the learned Counsel for the parties and need not be mentioned here since all of them reiterate the same principles with respect to the distinction between material fads and material particulars Reference can be had to some of them, namely, Samant N. Balakrishana v George Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201, Azhar Hussains case (supra) and Udhav Singhs case (supra) considered in detail in the case of Narain Chand Prashar (supra) In addition thereto, the observations made in Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain and others, AIR 1960 SC 770 (five Judge Constitution Bench) still continue to hold the field, wherein It has been held that: “The practice to be followed in cases where insufficient particulars of a corrupt practice are set forth in an election petition, is this. An election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine merely because full particulars of a corrupt practice alleged in the petition, are not set out. Where an objection is raised by the respondent that a petition is defective because full particulars of an alleged corrupt practice are not set out, the Tribunal is bound to decide whether the objection is well founded. Where an objection is raised by the respondent that a petition is defective because full particulars of an alleged corrupt practice are not set out, the Tribunal is bound to decide whether the objection is well founded. If the Tribunal upholds the objection, it should give an opportunity to the petitioner to apply for leave to amend or amplify the particulars of the corrupt practice alleged ; and in the event of non-compliance with that order the Tribunal may strike out the charges which remain vague Insistence upon full particulars of corrupt practices is undoubtedly of paramount importance in the trial of an election petition, but if the parties go to trial despite the absence of full particulars of the corrupt practice alleged, and evidence of the contesting parties is led on the plea raised by the petitioner, the petition cannot thereafter be dismissed for want of particulars, because the defect is one of procedure and not one of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the plea in the absence of particulars The appellate Court may be justified in setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal if it is satisfied that by reason of absence of full particulars, material prejudice has resulted ; and in considering whether material prejudice has resulted, failure to raise and press the objection about the absence of particulars before going to trial must be given due weight." 45. Judging the allegations under the two heads made in the petition by applying the above said well settled tests, I now proceed to consider the allegations parawise, whether there is failure to plead material facts or material particulars in the petition or whether it does not disclose any cause of action. 46. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the allegations contained in paras 10 (a) to 10 (f) pertain to the contravention of section 77 of the Act and Rules 86 and 90 of the Election Rules within the meaning of section 123 (6) of the Act. Allegations in paras 10 (a) to 10 (d) is with respect to the filing of untrue statement of electoral expenses (Annexure PA) by respondent 1. A reading thereof, coupled with the expenditure voucher annexed with the petition and its copy supplied to the respondent pertaining to the payment of Rs 15,000 to Shri Jagmohan Sharma, shows that the said expenditure was not disclosed. A reading thereof, coupled with the expenditure voucher annexed with the petition and its copy supplied to the respondent pertaining to the payment of Rs 15,000 to Shri Jagmohan Sharma, shows that the said expenditure was not disclosed. The allegations set out in the petition, as also the contents of the receipts relating thereto also prima facie show the expenditure incurred in election and receipt thereof by the aforesaid Jagraohan Sharma from respondent 1. How the said fact is to be proved, is a matter of evidence Also, what weight—is to be attached, is also to be considered by this Court. However, the entire facts alleged, when read with the receipt of the expenditure, indicate sufficiency of the material facts and material particulars having been pleaded by the petitioner. In case the above said facts are proved, whether the expenditure is beyond the permissible limit and as such, is in contravention of the Act and the Election Rules, is required to be determined at a later stage This allegation, in itself, constitutes an independent cause of action than the one averred in para 10 (e). 47. Regarding the allegations made in para 10(e) under head "A", the factum of the use of two vehicles is even admitted by the respondent in his reply to the petition. The case of respondent 1 as pleaded is that one of the vehicles was used for only one day in his election campaign So, the fact that what slogans were displayed on the banners affixed in both the vehicles or what was the party symbol displayed thereupon or whether loud-speakers were affixed on the top of the vehicles from which announcements were being made to request the voters to vote for respondent 1, are immaterial and it cannot be said that the allegations made in this para suffer from lack of material facts. 48. Now adverting the allegations made in para 11 (a) to 1 l(g) under head "B", a close reading of the contents of news item appearing in UTTAM HINDU", Hindu Daily dated 22nd of September, 1993 shows that it refers to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner. It is, no doubt, defamatory also In case the said statement is used by any person during his election-campaign against the petitioner, a contesting candidate, it would definitely tend to prejudice the prospects of the petitioners success in the election. It is, no doubt, defamatory also In case the said statement is used by any person during his election-campaign against the petitioner, a contesting candidate, it would definitely tend to prejudice the prospects of the petitioners success in the election. In that view of the matter, the averments so pleaded are to be considered in the light of the well settled principles, referred to above Detail of facts and the manner in which the use of the above said news item had been made by respondent 1 during his election campaign for three days from 6th to 8th November, 1993 respectively, has categorically been pleaded by the petitioner. He has also pleaded that respondent 1 got the photo stat copies thereof prepared There are sufficient facts to indicate that after preparation, the same were carried in one of the vehicles, the use of which is not denied by the respondent, and distributed in different villages on different dates as mentioned in this para The source from where the petitioner sought the information with respect to the publication and distribution of the hand-bills containing the contents of the aforesaid news-item, has also been pleaded. The allegations, in this respect, contained in paras 11 (a) to 11 (e), are elaborate, except the fact that petitioner has not named the election agent or the workers of respondent 1 who helped him in the publication and distribution of the aforesaid handbills nor there is any pleadings as to whether respondent 1 had given his consent to the distribution of such hand bills by his party workers or election agent. (Sh. S. P. Jain, learned Counsel for respondent No, 1 states at the bar that respondent I had not engaged any election agent except on 9-114993, the date on which votes were polled). In other words, material facts have been given but material particulars with respect to the help extended by election agent or party workers in respect of the publication and distribution of the hand-bills, have not been given in the petition. As per the decision of five Judge Constitution Bench in Balwan Singhs case (supra), an opportunity to give material particulars should be afforded to the petitioner. However, during the course of arguments, Sh. As per the decision of five Judge Constitution Bench in Balwan Singhs case (supra), an opportunity to give material particulars should be afforded to the petitioner. However, during the course of arguments, Sh. D. D. Sood, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has confined his allegations made in these paras only to the extent of publication and distribution of the above said news item by respondent 1 in the manner so alleged and for the purpose of causing prejudice to the prospects of the petitioner knowing the news item to be false or believing it to be untrue by him (respondent 1). Thus, the allegations contained in paras 11 (a) to 11 (d) with respect to the part played by the party workers or election agent in respect of the publication and distribution of the band bills containing the contents of the news item appearing in "UTTAM HINDU" dated 22-9-1993 are liable to be struck off under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is ordered accordingly. The submission of Shri S. P. Jain, that respondent 1 had no connection with the publication of distribution of the said news item in the shape of photo copies thereof, as alleged by the petitioner, is to be considered on merits. Prima facie, there are sufficient pleadings in the petition in this respect so as to constitute pleading of not only material facts but also material particulars against respondent 1 with respect to publication and distribution of the hand-bills to constitute the corrupt practice under section 123 (4) of the Act inasmuch as the petitioner states (a) a statement of fact, (b) that both he and respondent 1 were contesting candidates in the election in question, (c) that the statement is false and respondent 1 also believed it to be false or that respondent 1 did not believe it to be true (d) that the statement referred to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner and (e) that it was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioners election. The alternative case pleaded by respondent 1, in this behalf, is that the publication of the news-item was much prior to the announcement of the election programme and it is neither defamatory nor absolutely false nor it sullies the character of the petitioner. 49. The alternative case pleaded by respondent 1, in this behalf, is that the publication of the news-item was much prior to the announcement of the election programme and it is neither defamatory nor absolutely false nor it sullies the character of the petitioner. 49. Thus, from whatsoever angle the pleadings of the petitioner be viewed in relation to the commission of electoral corrupt practices by respondent-1, the petition does give details of different causes of action but independent of each other and each cause of action constitutes sufficient details of material facts and particulars, as envisaged under section 83 of the Act, to the extent as discussed above. Issue 1 (a) is decided accordingly. Issue No, 1 (b) 50 This issue is to the effect as to "whether the affidavit and verification of the petition is not in accordance with the requirement of section 83-C, if so its effect ? OPR 1". 51. Learned Counsel for the respondent 1 has not pressed this issue during the course of arguments. Even otherwise, nothing has been pointed out as to what is the defect in verification of the petition or how affidavit annexed therewith is not in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, this issue is decided against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner. Issue No. 2 52. This issue is to the effect as to "whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of necessary parties as envisaged under section S2 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ? OPR 1". 53. Parties have not led any evidence on this issue. Petitioner has sought the relief of declaring the election of respondent 1 to be void and a direction for re-poll in 33-Kutlehar Constituency only. There is no dispute that all the contesting candidates have been impleaded in the array of respondents. Learned Counsel for respondent I has contended that the provisions of section 82 of the Act are mandatory in nature and any failure to comply with the same is fatal, in the sense that it is obligatory on this Court to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 82 of the Act. He has relied, for this purpose, upon section 86 (1) of the Act. He has relied, for this purpose, upon section 86 (1) of the Act. His further contention, in view of the above mandatory provision, is that it is not open to this Court to apply the principles of Code of Civil Procedure and treat a mis-joinder of the parties as not fatal to the maintainability of this petition. 54. The foundation of the argument is that there has been a non compliance with the provisions of section 82 If that foundation is absent, then the whole argument dis-appears, None of the respondents 2 to 5 have either appeared or filed their reply to the petition. In the present case, there is no prayer for the grant of any other reliefs except the one, referred to above. It was, therefore, not necessary to implead the other contesting candidates. The question as to whether joinder of respondents 2 to 5 amounts to contravention of section 82 of the Act, came up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Murarka Radhay Shyam Ram Kumar v. Rup Singh Rathaur, AIR 1964 SC 1545. Their Lordships held that if all the necessary parties joined to the election petition, the circumstance that a person who is not a necessary party has also been impleaded, does not amount to a breach of the provisions of section 82 and no question of dismissing the petition under sub-section (3) of section 90, corresponding to sub-section (1) of section 86, arises, It was further held that it is open to the Election Tribunal, now Court, to strike out the name of the party, which is not a necessary party within the meaning of section 82 of the Act. In view of the above pronouncement of the apex Court subsequently followed in the case of Noro Singh Tripathy v. Gurubaru Majhi and others, ILR 1981 (1) Cut 39, the contention raised on behalf of respondent 1 is devoid of any force. This issue is, therefore, answered in the negative. [Para 55] 56. In view of the discussion on the above-said issues, the petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine at this stage and it requires determination on other issues on merit. Petition allowed.