Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 143 (HP)

DILE RAM v. TEK CHAND

1998-08-03

P.K.PALLI

body1998
JUDGMENT P.K.Palli, J: TMs judgment shall dispose of the preliminary issue. reproduced hereunder, which were framed by this Court on June 23,1998: (I).Whether there has been non-compliance with Section 81 of die Representation of People Act? If so, its effect ? OPR. (II). Whether there has been non-compliance with Section 83 of the Representation of People Act as detailed in preliminary objections raised in the written statement ? If so, its effect ? OPR. (III). Whether the copies supplied to the respondent are not the true copy ? If so, its effect? OPR (IV). Whether the document at.S.No.6 as contained in Form-B at page 31 of the petition has not been supplied to the respondent ? If so, its effect ?OPR. (V). Whether on allegations made in para 2 of the petitioner with regard to the declaration of the results on 2.2.1998, the Election Petition is within time ? OPP. (VI). What is the effect of the documents contained in the envelop with the petition being without verification, attestation and supplying of the copy to the respondent ? OPR: (VII), What is the effect of not placing on record the evidence of depositing Rs. 2000/- as security of cost of the Election Petition ? OPR " 2. Petitioner Dile Ram who Contested the election from 61-Nachan (SC) Assembly Constituency in Himachal. Pradesh on-Bhartiya Janta Party- ticket and lost it, has laid challenge to the election of respondent Tel: Chand who contested on the Congress ticket and was declared elected. 3. . The nomination papers were- to be filed from January- 28, 1998 to February 4,1998 scrutiny was held-on February 5,1998: February 7,1998 was the date fixed as last date of withdrawal of the candidature: Symbols were allotted on February 7, 1998, polling-was held on February728, 1998, votes were counted and. .Result declared on March 2, 1998. . 4. Five candidates contested this election. The petitioner’s secured 13,631 votes as against the winning candidate respondent Tek Chand who polled 14,390 votes. One Shri Sohan lal who contested on Janta Dal ticket, polled 328 votes and Shri Damodar who contested on the Himachal Vikas Congress ticket, polled 9,182 votes and Shri Nikka Ram who contested as independent candidate, polled2,287votes. 5. Five candidates contested this election. The petitioner’s secured 13,631 votes as against the winning candidate respondent Tek Chand who polled 14,390 votes. One Shri Sohan lal who contested on Janta Dal ticket, polled 328 votes and Shri Damodar who contested on the Himachal Vikas Congress ticket, polled 9,182 votes and Shri Nikka Ram who contested as independent candidate, polled2,287votes. 5. It is said from the side of the petitioner that nomination papers of Shri Nikka Ram, who contested as independent, were improperly and wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer and this has materially affected the result in so far as it concerns the election of the respondent. It Has been said in the petition that Shri Nikka Ram was disqualified being chosen as Member of the Assembly as he was holding an office of the profit under the Government of Himachal Pradesh oh the day of filling the nomination papers. It is also said that-he was an active worker of the RSS and closely associated with the cadre and workers of the SANGH as well as Bhartiya Janta Party as he was well acquainted., with the workers and supporters of &e Bhartiya Janta Party and further tried to get the party ticket to; contest the election- Since he was denied the ticket he contested as independent It is said that the vote bank of the petitioner well as that of .Shri Nikka Ramwas by and large common to both of them. His contesting election as independent candidate and getting 2,287 votes has material affected there result of the election. These are said to be ant-Congress votes and had he not contested, these votes were likely to come to the petitioner. The difference of margin between the petitioner and the respondent is 759 votes only and had the nomination papers of Nikka Ram been rejected, the votes polled by him would have definitely been poled in favour of the petitioner. 6. In the written statement filed by the respondent the following preliminary objections were raised : "(a) There has been non-compliance of sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Act. . . (b) There has been non-compliance of Section 83(1) (a) as the petition lacks concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relises. (c) There has been non-compliance of section 83(1 )(c) with regard to verification. . . (b) There has been non-compliance of Section 83(1) (a) as the petition lacks concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relises. (c) There has been non-compliance of section 83(1 )(c) with regard to verification. (d) There has been non-compliance of sub section 2 of section 83 of the Act. (e) That neither, the schedule nor the .petition has been signed by the petitioner in the manner prescribed under law. (0 That the copy of the petition supplied to the respondent is not true copy. (g) That the document at S.No. 6 as contained in Form-B Page 31 has not been supplied to the respondent. . (h) That the copies have been signed by the Advocate who could not sign under law. (i) Taking into consideration the averments made in para -2 of the petition to the effect that after the counting of votes, the result of election was declared by the Returning Officer on 02.02.1998 and the candidates Were shown to have secured the votes as follow..........." the petition is time barred. (j) That the petitioner has put certain documents in an envelop without referring to these documents in the petition and without complying with the provisions of law with regard to the verification, attestation and supplying copy to the respondent and hence these papers are mere waste papers and do not help the petitioner at all and are required to be rejected. (k) That the petitioner has not placed any receipt of security of Rs. 2000/-as is required under Section 177 of the Act and the same receipt or copy thereof is not supplied to the respondent, as such there is non-compliance of Section 117 of the Act and under sub-section 1 of Section 86 die petition is liable to be dismissed. (I) All the Annexures and schedules are integral part of the petition." 7. After submitting these preliminary objections, it was prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed at the preliminary stage. 8. On merits, it has been denied that the nomination papers of Shri Nikka Ram were wrongly and improperly accepted. It is further said that no concise statement of material facts has been given as to how the result of the election stands materially affected. 8. On merits, it has been denied that the nomination papers of Shri Nikka Ram were wrongly and improperly accepted. It is further said that no concise statement of material facts has been given as to how the result of the election stands materially affected. It is denied mat Nikka Ram was holding any office of profit under the Government of Himachal Pradesh on the date of filing the nomination papers by him. In para 3 on merits, it is said that Annexure -P/l is not in accordance with the law on the Election Petitions as the same is not attested as required under Section 81 (3) of the Act. Challenge has also been laid to the verification being not in accordance with law laid to the verification being not in accordance with law laid down in Section 83(2) of the Act. It is further said that Annexure -P/l is not correct copy of the Annexure attached with the Election Petition nor it is verified in accordance with law. Other allegations that Nikka Ram was active or otherwise worker of RSS. or Bhartiya Janta Party stand denied. 9. In the replication filed by the petitioner, the preliminary objections are said to be wrong and denied. It has been said that full material facts, as are required, have been detailed in the petition and nothing has been said by the respondent as to which material fact was lacking in which part of die petition. It is said that the provisions as contained in Sections 81, 83 and 117 of the Act have been duly complied with and the petition does not suffer from any impediment It has also been said that the documents which are put in the envelop, are mentioned in list B as required by the High Court Rules and Orders and these documents are not required to be verified or attested nor these are meant to be supplied to t he respondent. More over, the documents at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in list B are said to be certified copies of Annexures P-l to P-5. In respect of the receipt for deposit of Rs. 2,000/- as security amount, it is said that the original receipt was attached to the Election Petition as required under the High Court Rules & Orders and the copy Of it is not required to be supplied to the respondent. In respect of the receipt for deposit of Rs. 2,000/- as security amount, it is said that the original receipt was attached to the Election Petition as required under the High Court Rules & Orders and the copy Of it is not required to be supplied to the respondent. The petition, as said by the petitioner, does not suffer from non-compliance of the provisions as contained in Section 117 of the Act. It has been reiterated from the side of the petitioner that the copies supplied are duly attested and verified in accordance with law and are correct copies and there is no variation at all. It is the above said preliminary objections which have been put under preliminary issues. 10. After the issues were framed, a request was made from the side of the respondent that he desires to examine only the respondent in support of these issues. The case was consequently adjourned for the examination of the respondent on July 1,1998. 11. On July 1,1998. learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that there may be any need to examine the respondent in case the copies supplied to the respondent are admitted by the petitioner. Consequently, copies were shown to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who admitted the same under his signatures. In this view of the situation, the respondent, though present in Court, was given up and the case was ordered to be listed on July 22,1.998 for arguments. Arguments were concluded on July 22,1998 and judgment was ordered to be reserved. 12- At this stage it may be made clear that it is the aforesaid controversy which has been put in the preliminary-issues. I have purposely refrained myself from taking note of the other pleas taken in the petition and the written statement on merits since it is the preliminary objections only that are proposed to be dispose of in this judgment. In case the objections raised are up-held, the petition shall have to be dismissed at the very threshold being not maintainable and in case the objections are ordered to be dismissed, the Election Petition shall proceed in accordance with law and shall be dispose of after framing of the issues and thereafter on the basis of the evidence placed on record by the parties on such pleas. 13. 13. Issues No. 1 & 3: Issues No. 1 and 3- are proposed to be clubbed Mr. Inder Singh addressed comprehensive arguments touching both these issues. Even otherwise, as I look at both these issues, the} over-lap one another. The requirement of Section 81 of the Act, non-compliance whereof is being projected from the side of the respondent, relates to presentation of petitions. Sub-section (3) stipulates 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 signatures to be a true copy of the petition/ As the respondent has. laid challenge-,to the non-compliance, of this provision, issue No. 1 came to be framed covering, that objection. 14. Issue No. 3 is as to whether the copies supplied to the respondent arc not the true copies.? If so, its effect ? Mr. Inder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has brought to my notice that the matter could not be looked into ,from the standards of the theory of substantial compliance as Election Petition is a statutory litigation and not a litigation in common law. The first objection that is being surfaced is that copy of the receipt in respect of deposit of Rs. 2,000/- has not been supplied to the respondent I think it would be appropriate to deal with this point under Issue No. 7. 15. It is next sought to be urged by Mr. Inder Singh that the provisions as contained in Section 81(3) of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance thereof is fatal to the very maintainability of the petition which has to be dismissed on the very threshold without going to any other question. 16 Learned counsels has brought to my notice Section 86 as appearing in Chapter-Ill in respect to trial of election petition. Sub-sectional) of Section 86 lays down that the High Court shall dismiss and election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 17. We are not concerned with the other clauses of the said provisions. It is sought to be high-lighted from the side of the respondent that at page 1 of the original. We are not concerned with the other clauses of the said provisions. It is sought to be high-lighted from the side of the respondent that at page 1 of the original. Election petition, court fee stamps have been affixed but there is no indication, in the copy supplied to the respondent that stamps are affixed on the election petition. It is, thus, said that the same is not true coy 17. It is next being high-lighted that at page 1 of the copy supplied to the respondent the signatures of the petitioner appears at the bottom but the words "attested to be true copy" are not written there. This very argument has been pressed in respect of other pages also, i.e. from pages No.2 to 10 of the copy of the petition supplied to the respondent. 18. Objection is further raised to page II of the£ petition which is the concluding page where it is said "certified to be correct Copy of the original petition;" The signatures of the petitioner do appear thereunder. He has also signed the petition as well as verification appearing on this page. The argument is that the words used in Section 81 (3) of the act are "such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signatures to be a true copy of the petition." It is being argued that instead of the words "certified "used by the petition the word "attested should have been put there. TV 19. With (his is raised another argument in respect of verification of the petition appearing "at page" 111 In. the verification, the petitioner has stated "verified this 7th day of April, 1998 at Shimla that the contents of paragraph 1 to 8 of the Election petition are true and correct to my knowledge. Nothing is kept concealed and no part of it is wrong.” 20. The argument that is being raised is that after paragraph 8, the petitioner has made prayer that for reasons mentioned In the Election Petition, the election of the returned candidate be declared void and set aside, but conspicuously the prayer clause has not been verified and thus clause (c) of Section 83 of the Act which deals with me contents of me petition, has not been complied with. 21. 21. Clause (c) of Section 83 prescribes that an election petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid/down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of pleading the argument is, thus, further based on non-compliance of the provisions contained in Order 6 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code which deals with the verification of pleadings. For better understanding Order 6 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code is reproduced as under: "15. Verification of pleadings.- (i) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleadings or by some other person provided to the satisfication of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. (2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleadings, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. (3) The verification shall be singed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed." 22. Learned counsel, thus, conteds that die prayer clause having not been verified in accordance with the provisions noticed above, suffers from the mandatory requirement and die petition is liable to be dismissed. 23. My attention has next been brought to Annexure P/l which is the nomination paper filed by Shri Nikka Ram. Though the petitioner has signed it at the bottom on the left-hand side, yet, according to the learned counsel, the same has not been attested as True copy nor the same is legible. The words appearing on this document are said to be dim and the stamp appearing at page 13 is not legible. Learned counsel proceeds to submit that there is neither proper attestation nor proper verification of the Annexures filed along with the petition. 24. It would be useful-at this point to take note that with all these .Annexures the petitioner has also filed typed copies which have also been initialled by him at the bottom bit the left-hand side. My attention is brought to page 18 of the copy supplied where under the words "true copy” the signatures of the counsel appearing and not of the petitioner. My attention is brought to page 18 of the copy supplied where under the words "true copy” the signatures of the counsel appearing and not of the petitioner. It may be noticed that the signatures of the petitioner are there at the bottom on the left -hand side. It is here that my attention is being brought to the election petition page 18 which does not carry the signature of the petitioner whereas the same appear at the bottom of the copy. 25. The argument in respect of annexure-P/2 appearing at page 19 is also the same. It is being high-lighted that the words written in had under the date are not legible nor it can be made out as to what is the language of the stamp appearing thereon. The argument with respect to attestation being improper is also pressed. At page 21 the signatures of the counsel appearing under the words "true copy" and the petitioner has signed only in the margin on the left side. In respect to annexure -P/3, the argument in respect of attestation and verification is the same. At page 24 it is being pointed out that the petitioner has signed on the left-hand margin but his signatures do not appear on the election petition proper which means original. 26 In respect of annexure -P/4 appearing at page 25, it is being argued that the copy supplied is illegible and the languages written in hand as well as the stamp are completely illegible. The argument in respect of verification and attestation is also being raised in respect to annexure VP4/A which is the typed Version of annexure -P/4 appearing at page 26. It is being said that in the typed copy there is no indication that there is a stamp also on the photo copy. The arguments are again the same in respect of verification, attestation and signatures of the petitioner at page 27 which is a typed copy of annexure P-4/A. 27. -Learned counsel has then taken me to annexure P-5 the copy which has been supplied to the respondent appearing at page 28 and it is said that the same is not attested in accordance with the provisions noticed above. It is further being argued that the signatures of the petitioner appear on the left-hand margin at the bottom at page 29 whereas it is not so on the original petition. It is further being argued that the signatures of the petitioner appear on the left-hand margin at the bottom at page 29 whereas it is not so on the original petition. True translation has been signed by the counsel and not by the petitioner. 28. The next argument is m respect of copy of Form-B supplied to the respondent appearing at page 30. On the top it is written "list of documents produced by the petitioner". It is said that it is not properly attested and only signatures appear which do not earn- any meaning. My attention has been brought to page 30 of the original petition where the position is exactly the same. At page 31 of this very form the signatures of the petitioner as well as of the Advocate appear and the petitioner has in addition put his signatures at the bottom on the left -hand side. It is said that in the original petition the signatures of the petitioner on the margin at the bottom do not appear. 29. Another argument that needs to notice is that there is a greeting of New Year in original which appear at item No. 6 at page 31 of Form-B and this document has not been supplied to the respondent. Its effect would be seen while deciding issue No.4. 30. At page 32 of the copy supplied is the Form; BB’ in respect of the list filed by the petitioner on April 7, 1998. It is said that the documents mentioned under heading 2, have not been supplied to the respondent and the copy supplied does not contain proper attestation. The argument is repeated in respect of attestation and signatures of the petitioner appearing at page 33 which is the statement of address of the petitioner. 31. In further support of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, reliance is being placed on (1996) 5 SCC 181, (Dr. Shipra (Smt.) & Ors. v. Shanti Lai Khoiwal & Ors.); an unreported judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Election Petition No. 6 of 1994, (Kanwar Durga Chand v. Ravinder Singh (Ravi), decided on November 7, 1996, wherein the law laid down in 1996 SCC (supra) was followed. 32. Shipra (Smt.) & Ors. v. Shanti Lai Khoiwal & Ors.); an unreported judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Election Petition No. 6 of 1994, (Kanwar Durga Chand v. Ravinder Singh (Ravi), decided on November 7, 1996, wherein the law laid down in 1996 SCC (supra) was followed. 32. Learned counsel then cites AIR 1996 SC 796, (Manohar Joshi v.Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr.);MR1992MadbyaPndcshl61,(Rameshwar Dayal Arale v. Munna Singh Bhadoria & Ors); AIR 1990 SC 924, (U.S. Sasidharcm v. K.Karunakaran & Anr.); AIR 1991 SC 1537; (FA. Sapa etc. v. Singora & Ors.) 33. Learned counsel, thus, concludes the arguments on these issues by urging that there are visible variations in the copy of the petition as well as Annexures supplied to the respondent and the copy supplied cannot be said to be a true copy of the petition. Lastly, the learned counsel has cited a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Election Petitions No.l of 1998 (Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malanger & Ors.), decided on June 24, 1998. 34. In reply, Mr. Bhoop Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that there is no defect in the petition as such which is being Unnecessarily high-lighted from the side of the respondent. The copy as well As Annexures supplied are perfectly in order and meet the requirement of law. It is being said that there is nothing in the Election Law which prescribes all these tests and for that matter one shall have to peruse the Original Side Rules 1997 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. These Rules were framed by this Court laying down the procedure and guidance in the matter of trial of Election Petition under Part -VI of the Representation of the People Act as amended. Rule .7 deals with the security of costs whereas Rule 12(d) prescribes the original receipt for the deposit of security of costs to accompany the petition. Rule 14(a) deals with scrutiny of papers at the level of the Registration of this Court and Rule 14(b) prescribes that if on scrutiny it is found that the petition does not comply with the requirements of Section 81 of Section 82 of Section 117 of the Act, the Registrar shall make specific endorsement to that effect. 35. Rule 14(a) deals with scrutiny of papers at the level of the Registration of this Court and Rule 14(b) prescribes that if on scrutiny it is found that the petition does not comply with the requirements of Section 81 of Section 82 of Section 117 of the Act, the Registrar shall make specific endorsement to that effect. 35. Under clause (d) of Rule 14, the list of such petitions which are not ill conformity with the mandatory provisions noted above, shall be put on the board and the copy of die list shall be sent to the Secretary of the High Court Bar Association on the day preceding the date for which these petitions arc directed to be placed before any one of the designated Judges. It shall further specify necessary directions or orders in respect of non-compliance with the Rules and the date of hearing to be communicated to the petitioner. 36. Rule 15 prescribes the procedure for preliminary hearing of defective petitions. It is laid down therein that the petitions which have been found prim a facie by the Registry as not complying win the provisions noticed above or have been filed incomplete, not comply this the rules, shall be brought up before the designated Judge on the date fixed and as per clause (b) of Rule 15, in case it is found that the petition does not comply with the provisions of the above said three mandatory Sections but does not comply with any of other rules or requirements contained in mis Chapter, the High Court may allow the petitioner or the Advocate Incharge such farther time not exceeding one week to do the needful on such terms as it may deem fit to impose. 37. Mr. Bhoop Singh^ thus, contends mat the copies supplied to the respondent do not suffer from any fatal defect, each and every page of the copy has been duly signed by die petitioner and it is not necessary to specifically state mat these are attested to be true copies of the original as per requirements of law. No material fact which was necessarily to be incorporated in the petition has been kept away. 38. No material fact which was necessarily to be incorporated in the petition has been kept away. 38. It is further being said in reply that every document attached to the petition does not form integral part of the petition for the purposes of evidence, in no sense, can be said to be an integral part of the election petition and Section 83(a) of the Act clearly specifies as to what a petition should contain. The documents attached to the petition, according to the learned counsel, are only supporting evidence and nothing hinges on that as the petition is clear on the grounds on which die election is sought to be set aside. My attention has been brought to paras 3, 4 and 5 of die election petition which contain material facts which were required to given by die petitioner. 39. Learned counsel further replies that the attestation, verification of the copies as well as die documents is perfectly in order and if this Court comes to this conclusion that it is not properly attested or verified, die defect can be remedied by an amendment or die petitioner can be directed to do die needful within die time allowed. 40. It is also being argued that the petitioner cannot be blamed for the documents which are said to be illegible or mis-leading since these are the copies which have been obtained from the Election Department and are identically the same as attached to the original election petition and, thus, there has been no attempt on the part of the petitioner to cause any mis-reading to the respondent It is being pointedly said that the copies which are attached to the election petition proper, are-the same which have been supplied to the respondent. In addition to. These are further accompanied with fair and legible typed copies. According to the learned counsel, if the original itself is not clear or the copy supplied to the petitioner by the agency is not legible, he cannot be blamed for the same as all out efforts have been made to supplement these photo copies with fair typed copies. 41. Learned counsel further contends that at page 34 where the petition concludes, the petitioner has-been cautious to certify that the copy being supplied is the-true cop} of the original petition. 41. Learned counsel further contends that at page 34 where the petition concludes, the petitioner has-been cautious to certify that the copy being supplied is the-true cop} of the original petition. The petitioner has put down his signatures under the certificate as well as on the margin on the left-hand side. 42. In further support of the arguments raised, the learned counsel has pressed the law laid down in AIR 1964 SC 1027, (Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal); AIR 1964 SC 1545, (Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore & Ors.); AIR 1984 SC 871, (A. Madan Mohan v. Kalavakunta Chandrasekhara); AIR 1968 SC 1079, (Smt. Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar &,Ors.); AIR 1991 SC 1557, (F.A. Sapa etc. v. Singora & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 840, (M.Kamalam v. Dr. A.V. Syed Mohammed); AIR 1990 SC 924, (U.S. Sasidharan v. K.Karunakdran & Am.); AIR 1996 SC 796, (Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr.); and AIR 1996 SC 1691, (Dr. (Smt.) Shipra etc. v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal etc.). 43. In rejoinder to the arguments in reply, Mr. Inder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent argues that once the documents are attached to the petition and are not reproduced in the body of the petition, these are necessarily to be supplied to the respondent. Once the petitioner relies upon certain documents which are placed or attached to the petition, the copies must be supplied otherwise the requirement of law is not fulfilled. The question, according to the learned counsel, would be whether the Annexures which are attached to the petition are the integral part of the petition or not. 44. Attestation, according to the learned| counsel is the requirement of1 Section 85 and the theory of substantial compliance shall have no application to the given facts. 45. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and on careful perusal of the case law cited at the Bar, there can be no second opinion for holding that unless the copy supplied to the respondent does not meet the| requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act, the election petition1 has to be dismissed. 46. The law is also settled that it should be the clear true copy which should be a transcript identical to or substitute to the original and may not be absolutely an exact copy. 46. The law is also settled that it should be the clear true copy which should be a transcript identical to or substitute to the original and may not be absolutely an exact copy. The idea behind is that the other side is not put to any mis-understanding about the copy being true. The question is to be examined. From the angle as to whether there are any variations from the original petition so as to mis-lead the party. / 47. This, again, is a settled proposition that the concept of substantial compliance cannot be extended so as to over-look serious or vital mistake which shed the character of a true copy. 48. It is further a settled proposition of law that a document which is found to be an integral part of the petition, its details must be supplied. Furnishing a copy without such document would not be furnishing a true and complete copy and, thus, it cannot, by any imagination, be taken or regarded as a true copy. Simply because the returned candidate has made an endorsement would not be enough. The lapse cannot be accepted as inconsequential. 49. The Dr. Shipra s case (supra), the meaning and the test to determine true copy have been explained. In that case the affidavit accompanying the petition did not contain verification by the Notary who had attested the original affidavit filed alongwith the petition and on analysis, the petition was held to be not maintainable. This judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Election Petition No. 6 of 1994, (Kanwar Durga Chand v. Ravinder Singh (Ravi) 50. In Manohar Joshi case (supra),-it has bean laid down that the provisions as contained in Section 85 of the Act being penal, are to be construed strictly. It was further said that non-compliance of Section 83 is not a ground dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 of the Act. 51. In Rameshwar Dayals case (supra), the learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that papers in addition to the petition which form integral part of the petition are to be included in the term "election petition". All material facts howsoever set out enjoining the petitioner the rely thereon, to succeed obviously forms-part of die election petition. 51. In Rameshwar Dayals case (supra), the learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that papers in addition to the petition which form integral part of the petition are to be included in the term "election petition". All material facts howsoever set out enjoining the petitioner the rely thereon, to succeed obviously forms-part of die election petition. The test which is applicable to a case of other documents to which clause (a) of Section 83 applied is not an inexorable and exclusive test. 52. In the case of U.S.Sasidharan (supra), it has been held that material facts contained in a document and the document referred to in the petition without pleading material facts, copy thereof must be supplied. The observations have been made in respect of a petition where there were allegations of corrupt practice. It will be useful to take notice of the observations appearing in para 23 of the judgment where the election was challenged on four grounds one of which was corrupt practice. An appeal in the name of religion had been made through a pamphlet which was marked as Annexure -A. Though in the body of the petition a translation in English had been incorporated and the original pamphlet was attached to the petition as annexure-A, the election petitioners had stated in the petition that the pamphlet formed part of the petition. It was in this respect that an objection was raised from the side of the respondent that the pamphlet had not been annexed to they copy of the election petition and, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act. The Honble Supreme Court held that the pamphlet must be treated as a document and not as a part of the election petition in so far as the ferments were concerned. 53. In the case of FA. Sapa (supra), it has been ruled mat allegations in respect of corrupt practice should be viewed seriously and the High Court should ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 83 before the parties go to the trial. It, however, deserves to be noticed that in para 20 of the this judgment, it has also been held that mere defect in the verification of the of the petition is not fatal to the maintainability of the petition and the petition cannot be thrown out solely on that ground. It, however, deserves to be noticed that in para 20 of the this judgment, it has also been held that mere defect in the verification of the of the petition is not fatal to the maintainability of the petition and the petition cannot be thrown out solely on that ground. It was further held that since Section S3 is not one of the three provisions mentioned in Section 86(1), ordinarily it cannot be construed as mandatory unless verification is shown to be an integral part of the petition. 54. The unreported judgment in the case of Mahendra Pal (supra) is not even remotely attracted to resolve the controversy presently involved. 55. It has already been noticed above that the petitioner has signed every page of the copy supplied to the respondent and by way of separate typed copy catched to the Annexures, the same has been certified to be, a true copy under the signatures of the learned counsel and on the left -hand margin side bottom th.2 petitioner too has signed authenticating the same. It may be noticed that the copy supplied to the respondent is the carbon copy of the election petition proper. The photo copies which have been attached by way of Annexures are identically the same as attached to the original petition and on the verification pan it has been said that the contents of the documents are true and correct as y-T copy issued by the Election Department. 56. If the copies supplied by the concerned department are not clear or are otherwise dim or some part of it is illegibile, the petition has not to be blamed for not supplying true copies to the other side as the copies supplied in the present case are identically the same as these appear in the original petition. 57. The verification appearing at page 11 where the prayer portion of the petition has not been verified, is also, in my view, not fatal as the provisions ,i of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purposes of verification apply to the! election petition and the defect, if any, can be asked to be removed. 58. 57. The verification appearing at page 11 where the prayer portion of the petition has not been verified, is also, in my view, not fatal as the provisions ,i of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purposes of verification apply to the! election petition and the defect, if any, can be asked to be removed. 58. In the case of Ram Dial v. Sant Lai & Anr, (E.L.R. 430), the learned Division Bench of the then Punjab High Court has held that it is open to the Tribunal to permit an amendment to be made to the election petition even though the petitioner has not made any formal application for permission to amend the petition. 59. The judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 1691 (supra) is the same as reported in (1996) 5 SCC 181, Dr. (Smt.) Shipra s case. 60. In one of the earliest judgments on the Election Law reported in AIR 1964 SC 1027, Ch. Subbarao s case. Section 81(3) of the Act was interpreted in the manner so as to find out substantial compliance of the provisions. It was held that absence of the words "true copy" in the copy supplied to the respondent would not be fatal so as to dismiss the petition at the threshold and if it is found that the copies, that accompanied the petition, were true copies, there was substantial compliance with the provisions of law. 61. In the case of Sahodrabai (supra), cited from the side of the respondent, it was found that the copy of the annexure which was in the form of pamphlet, was not served on the respondent along with the copy of the petition. While interpreting the provisions contained in Sections 81(3),-83(2) 86(1) of the Act, it was held that the petition could not be dismissed under Section 86( 1) on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 81 (3) read with Section 83(2). It was further elaborated as to when and in what circumstances Annexures to the petition could be treated as part of the petitioner. 62. In the case of M.Kamlam, AIR 1978 SC 840 (supra), the Honble Supreme Court again examined the words and phrases as to "true copy" of the petition. The signatures of1he petitioners appeared at the end of the affidavit and not on the election petition. 62. In the case of M.Kamlam, AIR 1978 SC 840 (supra), the Honble Supreme Court again examined the words and phrases as to "true copy" of the petition. The signatures of1he petitioners appeared at the end of the affidavit and not on the election petition. It was ruled that it was not a ground for dismissal of the petition. 63. In the case of A. Madan Mohan. AIR 1984 SC 8 71 (supra), it was held that Annexures to the election petition in the form of documents and schedules, copies of such Annexures are not required to be served on the respondent. 64. It may be noticed that Section 82 of the Act or its applicability is not in question in the present controversy. It is Section 81 which covers issues N&: I and 3 and Section 83, non- compliance of which forms issue No. 2. Section 82 is not even remotely attracted to the present controversy non- compliance of which can entail or entails dismissal of the petition under Section 86 of the Act. 65. As I look at the copy of the petition, the petitioner has put his | signatures on the margin on the left-hand side at the end of every page indicating the authenticity of the copy. The grievance of the learned counsel that in the original petition the petitioner has not signed in that manner, is without any substance. Signatures of the petitioner appear on the copy supplied! I for purposes of authentication as true or correct copy and certainly it was not required to be so done on the election petition proper. 66. The argument that whether the court fee stamp has been affixed on the election petition or not, is no* indicated in the copy, is also, in my considered opinion, not a ground to hold that the copy supplied to the respondent is not true copy. In my considered view, the copies supplied to the respondent, in no way, give an impression that these are not true copies or the respondent has teen misled in any respect what -so-ever. 67. Both the issue (issues No. 1 and 3) are consequently held against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be dismissed for want of compainance of the provisions contained in Section 81 of the Representation of People Act. 68. 67. Both the issue (issues No. 1 and 3) are consequently held against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be dismissed for want of compainance of the provisions contained in Section 81 of the Representation of People Act. 68. Issue No. 2: Issue No. 2 has more or less been dealt with under issues No. I and 3 above. The requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 83 is that an election petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of the pleadings. In my view, there is no vital defect in the verification to the petition. More over, non-compliance of the provisions of Section 83 does not afford ground to the respondent so as to claim, dismissal of the petition under Section 86(1) of the Act. Once provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to verification are held applicable, the petitioner can be directed to remove the defect in the verification and is so directed to remove it within a week from today. Consequently, the issue is also held against the respondent 69. Issue No.4 : - The grievance of the respondent is that the document appearing at serial No.6 in Form -B at page 31 of the petition has not been supplied to the respondent. The question to be seen is that if it is not supplied, what would be its effect ? The document appearing at serial No.6 is the greetings of new year which were sent by Shri Nikka Ram to the petitioner. This document appears in the list of documents produced by the petitioner. Against this document it is written "to prove the allegations mentioned in paras 4 and 5 of the petition." 70. In paras 4 and 5 of the election petition the petitioner has alleged that Shri Nikka Ram was an active member of the RSS and Bhartiya Janta Party and he was actively participating in the programmes of both these organizations and since he was denied the Party ticket, he revolted and contested the election against him as an independent candidate whereby the result of the election stands materially affected. The documents attached are only supporting evidence and in my view, nothing hinges on it. The documents attached are only supporting evidence and in my view, nothing hinges on it. Supplying of this document to the petitioner along with the copy was not essential and this cannot be further said to be an integrals part of the petitioner. 71. Issue No. 5: The objection of the respondent is that in the 9th line of para 2 of the election petition the petitioner has said that the result of the election was declared by the Returning Officer on 2.2.1998 and if the limitation is counted from February 2,1998, the election petition filed on April 7,1998 in this Court is time barred. It appears to be a typographical mistake 72. In para 1 of the petition die petitioner has himself given various dates for the purpose of filing nomination papers, scrutiny, withdrawal, allotment of symbols, date of polling and date of counting. The date of counting has been given as "2nd of March, 1998" and the case is that after counting, the result was announced on that very day. The mistake, as it appears, is that instead of typing "2nd of March, 1998", "2nd of February, 1998" has been typed out. As noticed above, this is purely a typographical mistake and the mistake is ordered to be corrected by the petitioner within a week from today. The election petition, thus, can safely be held to be within time. 73. Issue No. 6: The respondent objects to the documents contained in the envelop with the petition on the ground that these are neither attested nor verified and have not been supplied to the respondent This issue, more or less, has already been dealt with under issue No .4. These documents are, at the cost of repetition, only the pieces of supporting evidence. There is nothing in the Election Law that these documents widen, are placed in the envelop, are to be certified or verified and copies are necessarily to be supplied to the respondent and if not so done, the petition can be dismissed at the very threshold. I have seen these documents. Annexure-l is the copies supplied to the respondent. The next document is annexure P/2 with the prayer that the nomination papers filed by Shri Nikka Ram be cancelled. The other document is annexure P/3 which is an affidavit filed by Joginder Singh that Nikka Ram is a Government servant. I have seen these documents. Annexure-l is the copies supplied to the respondent. The next document is annexure P/2 with the prayer that the nomination papers filed by Shri Nikka Ram be cancelled. The other document is annexure P/3 which is an affidavit filed by Joginder Singh that Nikka Ram is a Government servant. The next document is annexure P/4 which is the application given by Shri Nikka Ram to the Superintending Engineer seeking voluntary retirement. These are all certified true copies. The next document is Annexure P/5 in original addressed to petitioner Dile Ram supplying information in respect of the Resignation of Shri Nikka Ram. Annexure P/6 is the new year greeting card which has already been noticed above. No provisions of law nor any case law has been brought to my notice that these documents are required to be verified and attested in the manner or the copies have also to be supplied to the respondent The issue is consequently held against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner. 74. Issue No.7: When the arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the respondent, it was pointed out that the petitioner though has indicated in para 6 of the petition that an amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been deposited in this Court vide receipt No. 196602 dated March 31, 1998, yet the copy has not been supplied to the other side nor it goes to indicate that whether this amount was deposited as security per requirement of law or under some other head. The language of issue No. 7 is not happily worded. The petitioner has stated in para 6 that an amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been deposited vide receipt detailed above. The requirement of Section 117 of the Act is that at the time of presenting an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit in the High Court in accordance with the Rules of the High Court a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as security for the costs of the petition. It is at this stage that a look at the rules is necessary. Under Rule 7 which deals with the security of costs, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- is required to be deposited by the election petitioner as security for costs of the respondent 75. Mr. 2,000/- as security for the costs of the petition. It is at this stage that a look at the rules is necessary. Under Rule 7 which deals with the security of costs, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- is required to be deposited by the election petitioner as security for costs of the respondent 75. Mr. Inder Singh, learned counsel, lays emphasis on the words "as security for cost of die respondent" and proceeds to submit that these words are conspicuously missing in paragraph 6 of the petition. 76. A look at the petition revels that on a piece of paper the receipt in original has been pasted before the election petition starts. The deposit of amount has been indicated in the receipt as security amount. It is certainly not apart of the election and there is no requirement of law as such that its copy to be supplied to the other side. More over, the election petition was scrutinised by the learned Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court and on April 8, 1998, as outcome of the scrutiny, it has been found that the security of costs has been deposited by the petitioner before filing of the petition. The petition has been filed within the prescribed limitation and memorandum of parties is in order. It has also been found that the petition has been found in order. It is, no doubt, true that it does not give a certificate of clearance to the petitioner and the respondent can always raised an objection which shall be gone into and decided. In this view of the situation, I am of the view that there is no such defect as envisaged by Section 117 of the Act so as to dismiss the petition for its non-compliance under Section 86(1) of the Act 77. In view of my issue-wise findings recorded above, the preliminary issues are disposed of accordingly. It is held that the petition does not suffer from any fatal defect so as to entail its dismissal at the threshold nor there is any non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 81 or 117 of the Representation of People Act. The petition survives and shall now be disposed of in accordance with law. It is listed on August 11th 1998.