Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. This order deals with the petition filed by the returned candidate respondent No. 1 of the election petition for dismissing the election petition in limeline for non-compliance of the provision contained in Sec. 86(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. According to the respondent the election petition deserves to be rejected at its threshold on account of following defects of substantial character: (A) Divergence between the contents in the original election petition and the copies supplied to the answering respondent. (B) Non-disclosure of material facts and cause of action. (C) Non-attestation by the election petitioner in the original copy of the petition supplied to respondent No. 1. (D) Non-Joinder of necessary parties. (E) Absence of stamped endorsement of Notary, advocate and Oath Commissioner in the copy supplied to the petitioner. 2. Shri R.K. Prasad, learned Counsel for the returned candidate relying on decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, Allahabad High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court has vehemently argued that the election petition suffers from a number of infirmities hence can not proceed and should be dismissed summarily. It is to be stated that the election of the returned candidate has been challenged on the basis of averments made in paragraph 8 to 21 of the election petition. The allegation relates to irregularities committed during counting of the ballot papers. If the facts alleged in the election petition are accepted the election petitioner shall be entitled to a declaration the election of the respondent void. Although all the materials facts have been stated in the petition still the learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the petition lacks material particulars, hence there is non-compliance of Sec. 83(1) of the Act. In this connection the learned Counsel relies on a decision of Allahabad High Court reported in -- Ram Singh V/s. Kazi Mohiuddin which decision no doubt to some extent supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the returned candidate. In this case learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court expunged certain paragraphs of the election petition and then held the election petitioner had no cause of action to pursue the petition. This decision was followed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ram Samp v. Peer Chand -- . In this case learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court expunged certain paragraphs of the election petition and then held the election petitioner had no cause of action to pursue the petition. This decision was followed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ram Samp v. Peer Chand -- . The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that mere vague allegation in the petition does not constitute cause of action for trying the petition. However, Allahabad High Courts view can not be accepted in view of direct decision of the Supreme Court . In view of this decision. I am unable to place any reliance on the said decisions. After going through the election petition I am satisfied that there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel that material facts have not been disclosed in the election petition. It may be stated that most of the decisions cited by Shri Prasad relate to cased where the election was challenged on the ground of use of corrupt practice. It is not the case here. On a bare reading of Sec. 83(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act it is obvious that the election petitioner is required to set forth full particulars where corrupt practice is alleged against the returned candidate. In other cases concise statement of the material facts is sufficient. The first ground urged on behalf of returned candidate has no force and it is accordingly held that the election petition is not liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions contained in Sec. 83(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Shri Prasad next submitted that all the persons who had filed nomination papers have not been impleaded in the election petition and hence election petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. This contention is misconceived. Sec. 82 of the Act provides that election petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition all the contesting candidates and where the petitioner also claims a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. The election petitioner has impleaded all the contesting candidates. Shri Prasad submitted that all the 46 persons who had filed nomination papers should have been impleaded. This argument is contrary to Sec. 82 of the Act. The election petitioner has impleaded all the contesting candidates. Shri Prasad submitted that all the 46 persons who had filed nomination papers should have been impleaded. This argument is contrary to Sec. 82 of the Act. The decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 837 cited by Shri Prasad is not applicable here because there is no allegation of corrupt practice against any candidate in the instant case. 4. Shri Prasad next submitted that the copy of the election petition supplied to respondent No. 1 is not a true copy of the original petition, hence there is non-compliance of Sec. 81(3) of the Act. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 81 enjoins that every election petition shall be accompanied by a many as copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition. There is no allegation that the election petition was filed without as many as copies there of as there are respondents. The allegation is that the copies supplied to respondent No. 1 was defective for the following reasons : (a) Page 20 to 21 and some of the annexures are faint. (b) The endorsement of the Oath Commissioner in the affidavit at page 43 is absent in the copy. (c) There is no attestation by the election petitioner in the copy. 5. So far as first objection that some pages of the election petition and annexures are faint is concerned the same does not come within the purview of Sec. 83(1) of the Act So far second objection is concerned this very question has been considered and decided by me in E.P.No.10 of 1995(R). A similar objection was held to be unsustainable in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Muraka Radheshyam Ram Kumar V/s. Roop Singh Rathore -- and the decision of the M.P. High Court reported in AIR 1987 MP 208 Gangaram Bandil V/s. Reshmi Parihar. The Bombay High Court no doubt in AIR 1992(2) Bombay 227 held if endorsement of the Oath Commissioner is omitted in the copy supplied to the respondent; this is defective of substantial character and dismissed the election petition. The Bombay High Court no doubt in AIR 1992(2) Bombay 227 held if endorsement of the Oath Commissioner is omitted in the copy supplied to the respondent; this is defective of substantial character and dismissed the election petition. In the aforesaid case I have pointed out that Bombay case relates to cases of corrupt practice in which Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 is applicable and this was the reason why the Bombay High Court held that non-compliance of Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules amounts to breach of Sec. 83(1)(c) of the Representation of Peoples Act The third objection regarding maintainability equally devoid of any merit. 6. In the result I hold that none of the objections raised on behalf of the returned candidate for dismissing the election petition at the preliminary stage is sustainable. 7. This application is accordingly rejected with costs. The cost will abide the result of the election petition. The election petition shall proceed. The counsel for the respondent states that his client may move the Supreme Court against this order The respondent is granted four weeks time to bring stay order from Hon ble Supreme Court. Put up on 29.1.1996