Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. Original Petition is filed challenging Ext. P1 order passed by the Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakudam O.P.3/95. Petitioner is the respondent in O.P. 3/95. That is a petition filed by the present respondent challenging the election of the petitioner to the Irinjalakuda Municipality from Ward No. VI. Nomination of the respondent was rejected. Hence, election petition was filed. 2. Petitioner contended that the election petition was not maintainable. He urged two contentions; (1) Copy of the election petition served on him was not properly attested by the respondent and (2) Application was not accompanied by affidavit as provided in the Act. Learned Munsiff found that there was an affidavit accompanying the application. With regard to the first contention, learned Munsiff found that the respondent has not signed the last page and it was stated as' true copy'. Learned Munsiff found that the petition is strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Thus, election petition was declared to be maintainable by the Munsiff. It is challenging Ext. P1 that the present Original Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext. P1 order is against law and facts. He further submitted that respondent has not duly attested copy of the O.P. Respondent has not put his signature on all pages of the petition. 4.1 called for the files from the Munsiff s Court and I find that the petition contains 10 pages. On the 9th page, it is written as true copy and the petitioner has signed there. 10th page contains a schedule regarding the documents produced. There also petitioner/respondent herein has signed. S.165 of the Municipalities Act deals with presentation of election petitions. S.165(1) of the Municipalities Act says that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in S.178 and 179, to the Munsiffs Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within thirty days from the date of election. S.165(2) says 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. In the present case, we are concerned with S.165(2). S.165(2) says 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. In the present case, we are concerned with S.165(2). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent should sign in every page of the copy of the petition and if such signature is absent, petition is liable to-be dismissed. It is true that the election petition is liable to be dismissed, if it does not comply with the provisions of S.165(2) of the Municipalities Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the intention of the attestation appears to be that the election petitioner should take the responsibility for what is stated in the election petition and hence, it is enough if he signs only in the last page of the petition. 5. A similar contention was raised before the Supreme Court in the decision reported in A Sap and Others v. Singora and others (1991) 3 SCC 375. Court was interpreting S.81(3) of Representation of the People Act. S.81(3) of the Representation of the People Act is in parimateria with S.165(2) of the Municipalities Act. Regarding that Section, Supreme Court stated thus: "On a plain reading of S.81(3) it becomes clear that the requirement of that provision is: (i) the election petition should be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and (ii) every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. There is no dispute in regard to the compliance of the fist part. So far as the second part is concerned, all that the section 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 concerned petitioner. What is essential is that the petitioner must take the responsibility of the copy being a true copy of the original petition and sign in token thereof. The requirement of this part of the provision is met by each copy having been signed at the foot thereof by concerned petitioner. What is essential is that the petitioner must take the responsibility of the copy being a true copy of the original petition and sign in token thereof. 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". Learned counsel of the petitioner relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone - AIR 1980 SC 303, to the effect that attestation is made compulsory in order to see that papers are not subsequently corrected or tampered with and hence, according to the petitioner, in each page of the copy of the petition petitioner should sign as true copy. The decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 303 is by a Bench of two judges while the decision reported in (1991) 3 SCC 375 is by a Bench of three Judges. Hence, in so far as when the latter decision says that it is enough if the attestation is made at the foot of the petition, it is not necessary that the petitioner should attest on each page of the copy of the election petition. In view of the above, the order passed by the court below is confirmed. Original Petition is dismissed.