In the instant elec tion petition, under Section 80/81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as R. R Act only), brought by one Shri Tbofani, who has lost the election, arising out of the General Elections relating to 12th Lok Sabha, the respondent No. 1 Shri Vijay, a winning candidate has filed application under Order VI and Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 86 (1) of the R. P. Act, for striking of para graphs 9 to 16, 17 (1) to (XXXIX), 18 and 19 of the election petition and dismissing the election petition, which has been resisted by the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Shri Vijay and the petitioner, have been heard at length. 3. General Elections relating to the constitution of 12th Lok Sabha in the year 1998 were held between 2nd March, 1998 to 6th March, 1998. The petitioner Shri Tbofani was a candidate from Samajwadi Party, the respondent No. 1, Shri Vijay was a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party, the other contestants were respondent No. 2 to 8, in the said election the petitioner has lost by a margin of 825 votes. The petitioners allegations are that in the State, the Bhartiya Janata Party was in power, the official machinery was in favour of Bhartiya Janata Party can didates. The Parliamentary Constituency No. 49 to which this election petition re lates was a Reserved Constituency, it com prises five Assembly segments, namely, (1) Sadat, Ghaziapur, (2) Zakhania, Ghazipur, (3) Saidpur, Varanasi, (4) Kerakat, Jaunpur and (5) Bayalsi, Jaun-pur, covering three districts, namely, Jaun pur, Ghazipur and Varanasi. The counting in the three districts at Jaunpur, Ghazipur and Varanasi concluded by 1 p. m. on 3rd March, 1998 and after finalisation of the Chart (Form No. 20) the petitioner was declared to have been elected. A Special News Bulletin was broadcasted and televised by Doordarshan between 1 and 2 p. m. on that date and announced the petitioner to have been declared elected from the constituency. Subsequently, manipulations were made in Chart prepared in Form 20, the result was changed and the respondent No. 1 Shri Vijay was declared elected at about 6 p. m. on that date. Subsequently, manipulations were made in Chart prepared in Form 20, the result was changed and the respondent No. 1 Shri Vijay was declared elected at about 6 p. m. on that date. The petitioner has called in question the aforesaid declaration of result on the following two grounds: (i) The result of election of the respondent No. 1, Shri Vijay has been materially effected by non- compliance of the provisions of Constitu tion of India, R. P. Act, 1951 and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and the orders issued therein by the Election Commission of India, from time to time. (ii) The result of the election has been materially effected by improper acceptance of votes in favour of the respondent No. 1, Shri Vijay and other candidates, which "were void votes and also by improper rejection of various votes of the petitioner which were to be accepted in petitioners favour. 4. The concise statement of facts with respect of the aforesaid two grounds have been given in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the Election Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagan Nath v. Jas-want Singh, AIR 1954 SC 210 (particulary para 11), injyoti Basu v. Debt Ghosal, AIR 1982 SC 983 (particularly para 8), in J. S. Sasidharan v. A. Karunakaran, AIR 1990 SC 924 (particularly para 12), of this Court inram Singh v. Kazimohiuddin, Alr 1988: Allahabad 210 (particularly paras 11, 14, 15, 31 and 32), of Supreme Court in Ram Sewak v. H. K. Kidwai, AIR 1964 SC 1249 (particularly paras 6, 8, 9 and 10), in Jitendra Bahadur v. Krishna Behari, AIR 1970 SC 275 (particularly paras 9 and 10), in Udhav Singh v. M. R. Scmdia, AIR 1976 SC 744 (particularly paras 37 to 40), in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1253 (particularly para 11), of this Court ina. B. Singh v. Rajiv Gandhi, reported in 1985 AWC 515 (particularly paras 7 and 10), in Hari Narain v. Vmod Kumar, AIR 1987 Allahabad 319 (par ticularly paras 10, 11, 12 and 13), inramji Pandey v. Vikramaditya, AIR 1987 Al lahabad 92 (particularly paras 20, 21 and 24) and of the Supreme Court in Rahim Ktian v. Khurshid Ahmed, AIR 1975 SC 200. On the strength of these decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court the learned counsel for the respondent applicant vehemently argued that the sanctity of the election result has to be maintained, is not to be ordinarily inter fered with. The provisions of Section 83 of the R. P. Act are mandatory, omission of even a single material fact is fatal to the prosecution. The facts necessary to formu late a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of the claimant becomes bad. The material facts are necessary to present a composite picture of cause of action the absence of material facts means the absence of cause of action and in the absence of cause of action the petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 C. P. C. The material facts which are required to be pleaded in such a case have not been furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have been given complete details of the improper rejection and reception of the votes as said in the petition, the round Nos. , the counter table Nos. , the total Nos. , of votes which were rejected at particular table, the name of the counting agents who informed the petitioner about the alleged irregularities ought to have been mentioned in the elec tion petition, the SI. No. of the ballot papers which have been wrongly excluded from the petitioners result and included in the respondents result, ought to have been disclosed, the basis of allegation or the source of information, must have been disclosed in the petition, the verification of the petition and of the schedules and annexures to the petition are contradic tory and defective. The allegations of the petition do not disclose cause of action and as such the petition being laconic in material effects must be rejected. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the grounds alleged in the application moved by the respon dent No. 1, do not fall within the ambit of Order VI, Rule 16, CPC, the application is, therefore, not maintainable. The election petition furnishes material facts and dis closes complete cause of action. There is no defect in the verification. Only material facts are to be given in the election peti tion. The election petition furnishes material facts and dis closes complete cause of action. There is no defect in the verification. Only material facts are to be given in the election peti tion. The learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon the decisions of Honble Supreme Court (1) in Arun Kumar Bose v. Mohd. Furkan Ansari, AIR 1983 SC 1311 , (2) in S. A. Sapa v. Singora, 1991 (3) SCC 375 , in Jagjit Singh v. Dharam Pal Singh, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 422, (4) in Mohan v. Bhairon Singh Sek-hawat, reported in 1996 (7) SCC 679 and (5) in Ashwani Kumar Sharma v. Yaduvansh Singh and others. 6. Section 83 of the R. P. Act speaks about the contents in election petition. The said section provides as under: "83. Contents of petition- (1) An election petition- (a) shall contain a concise statement of the: material facts on which the petitioner relies. (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, in cluding as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings: Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars there of. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the peti tion shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. " 7. Section 100 (1) of the said R. P. Act, which recites the grounds for declaring an election to be void, runs as under: "100. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the peti tion shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. " 7. Section 100 (1) of the said R. P. Act, which recites the grounds for declaring an election to be void, runs as under: "100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.- (t) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec tion (2) if the High Court is of opinion) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the constitution or this Act or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20of 1963); or (b)That any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his elec tion agent or by any other person with the con sent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination has been im properly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been: materially affected- (i) By the improper acceptance of any nomination, or (ii) By any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or (iii) By the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) By any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, The High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. " 8. There are no allegations of corrupt practices. There are allegations of the im proper acceptance of rejection of votes and the non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution and of the R. P. Act, the Rules and the orders made there under. The present election petition falls under Section 100 (1), clause (d), sub-clauses (iii and iv) of the R. P. Act. 9. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the instant election petition con tains a concise statement of material facts, that is, cause of action. Paras 17 (1 to 39) and paras 18 and 19 of the petition recite the facts. 9. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the instant election petition con tains a concise statement of material facts, that is, cause of action. Paras 17 (1 to 39) and paras 18 and 19 of the petition recite the facts. The averments are that as per instructions issued by the Election Com mission, the counting was to be held by preparing the bundles of fifty ballots of each candidate, but in the Assembly Seg ment Kerakat and Bayalsi of district Jaunpur, the bundles of fifty ballot papers were prepared, which opened too much scope for manipulation and commission of il legalities/irregularities. The seating arran gements of the counting agents of the par ties were as such that it was not possible for the counting agent to watch counting properly and effectively, the counting agents were on one side of the table, while the supervisors and counting staff were seated on the other side of the table deal ing with the ballot papers. The side of the table was separated by fitting jalis from the counting agents and were separated to prevent counting agents to watch properly and effectively. The averments in the peti tion further are that about 1200 ballot papers in Sadar Assembly Segment in Ghazipur district alone, were valid votes of the petitioner containing official seal mark in favour of the petitioner, but they were arbitrarily rejected by the Assistant Returning Officer merely on the ground that the signature of the Presiding Officers on the back sides of the ballot papers were either not visible or were not legible or were not made, in utter disregard of the provisions of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. 10. In Assembly Segment Jakhania likewise, 800 votes which were poured in favour of the petitioner were rejected as invalid on the ground that the signatures of the Presiding Officers were not there, though the said 800 ballot papers con tained seal and were valid votes to the contrary in Assembly Segment Sadat and Jakhania the ballot papers which did not bear the signatures of the Presiding, Of ficers contained official seals, were counted in favour of the respondent No. 1. Likewise in Assembly Segment Bayalsi, about 1500 ballot papers, which also did not contain signatures of the Presiding Officer, were counted in favour of respon dent No. 1. Likewise in Assembly Segment Bayalsi, about 1500 ballot papers, which also did not contain signatures of the Presiding Officer, were counted in favour of respon dent No. 1. In Assembly Segment Kerakat 2200 ballot papers were counted in favour of the respondent No. 1, in which there were neither signatures of the Presiding Officers, nor official seal mark, as re quired under Rule 38 (1) of the Election Rules, 1961, which being invalid, could not be counted in favour of the respondent No. 1. In Assembly Segment Saidpur 1060 votes which did not contain signatures of the Presiding Officers, nor did contain the official seal mark, as prescribed by Elec tion Commission and under the Rules, 1961, were counted in favour of the respondent No. 1. In Assembly Segment Saidpur in 7th round, the candidate Shri Ram Nath had polled actually 270 votes, where as he has been shown to have polled 323 votes, in this way, 53 votes of the petitioner have been wrongly included in the bundle of the aforesaid candidate Ram Nath. In Assembly Segment Saidpur in the counting of first round the candidate respondent No. 3 Ram Nath polled 357 votes, whereas in the final chart he is shown to have received 350 votes. Seven votes of Shri Ram Nath have been added in favour of the respondent No. 1 in the counting. Similarly, in counting of fourth round of Saidpur, the candidate respon dent No. 4 Shri Sheo Bodh Ram polled 3803 votes, but in the final chart, he is shown to have polled 3703 votes. Thus, 100 votes of Shri Sheo Bodh Ram have been wrongly included in the counting in favour of the respondent No. 1. 11. The averments further recite that in the Assembly Segment Sadat in count ing of the 2nd round the respondent No. 4 Shri Sheo Bodh Ram polled 4147 votes, whereas in the final chart, he is shown to have polled 4167 votes, thus, 20 votes of the petitioner have been added in the bundles of the respondent No. 4 Shri Sheo Bodh Ram, resulting in the decrease of the votes of the petitioner. In Assembly Seg ment Bayalsi in the counting of 6th round the respondent No. 3 Shri Ram Nath polled 464 votes, whereas in the final chart he has been shown only 462 votes. In Assembly Seg ment Bayalsi in the counting of 6th round the respondent No. 3 Shri Ram Nath polled 464 votes, whereas in the final chart he has been shown only 462 votes. Thus, two votes of Shri Ram Nath have been added in the counting in favour of respon dent No. 1. In counting of 7th round Shri Ram Nath polled 457 votes, whereas he has been shown to have polled 461 votes. Thus, four votes of the petitioner have been added in the counting in favour of Shri Ram Nath. In 7th round the respon dent No. 1 Shri Vijay had polled only 5141 votes, where as in the final chart, he has been shown to have polled 5201 votes. Thus, sixty votes of the petitioner have been wrongly included in the result of the respondent No. 1 Shri Vijay. In the Said pur Assembly Segment in the first round of counting at Table No. 9 the petitioner received 370 votes, but seven votes of the petitioner were reduced and only 363 votes were recorded when, in fact, it should be 370 only. In Saidpur Assembly Segment in the 4th round of counting of Table No. 9 the petitioner received 410 votes, but 100 votes of the petitioner were reduced and were shown only as 310 as valid when, in fact, the figure should have been 410. In the Saidpur Assembly Seg ment in the 7th round of counting at Table No. 5 the petitioner received 449 votes but 53 votes of the petitioner were reduced and only 396 valid votes were recorded when, in fact, it should be 449. In Saidpur Assembly Segment in the 7th round of counting at Table No. 6, the petitioner received 474 votes, but one vote of the petitioner was not recorded and so only 473 votes have been shown, in fact, the figure should have been 474. In Saidpur Assembly Segment in the 8th round of counting at Table No. 9 the petitioner received 392 votes but 40 votes of the petitioner were not recorded and only 351 votes as valid votes were recorded when, in fact, it should be 391. 12. In Saidpur Assembly Segment in the 8th round of counting at Table No. 9 the petitioner received 392 votes but 40 votes of the petitioner were not recorded and only 351 votes as valid votes were recorded when, in fact, it should be 391. 12. As regards Kerakat Assembly Segment, the petitioner further contends that in the 10th round of counting at Table No. 5 the petitioner received 388 votes, but 60 votes of the petitioner were not recorded and were reduced and only 328 votes were recorded when, in fact, the fig ure should be 388. In Jakhania Assembly Segment in the 7th round of counting at Table No. 4 the petitioner received 292 votes but three votes of the petitioner were not recorded and only 289 votes were recorded when, in fact, it should be 292. Further in the said Jakhania Assembly Segment in 8th round of counting at Table No. 13 the petitioner received 359 votes but 53 votes of the petitioner were not recorded and were scribed only 306 votes when, in fact, it should be 359. Further, in the said Segment in the 10th round of counting at Table No. 4 the petitioner received 460 votes but 60 votes of the petitioner were not recorded and only 400 valid votes have been shown, in fact, the figure should be 460. In the Sadat Assemb ly Segment in the 2nd round of counting at table No. 1 the petitioner received 390 votes but 20 votes of the petitioner were not recorded and only 370 votes as valid votes have been shown, in fact, it should be 390. Further, in the said Sadat Assemb ly Segment in the 6th round of counting at Table No. 9 the petitioner received 350 votes but seven votes of the petitioner were reduced and were not recorded and only 346 votes were recorded, when in fact it should be 353. In Bayalsi Assembly Seg ment in the 6th round of counting at Table No. 3, the petitioner received 535 votes but two votes of the petitioner were reduced and were scribed only 534 votes, when, in fact, the figure should be 536 votes. In Bayalsi Assembly Seg ment in the 6th round of counting at Table No. 3, the petitioner received 535 votes but two votes of the petitioner were reduced and were scribed only 534 votes, when, in fact, the figure should be 536 votes. Further, in the said Bayalsi Assemb ly Segment in the 7th round of counting at Table No. 7 the petitioner received 310 votes, but 60 votes of the petitioner were reduced and were shown only 250 valid votes, when, in fact, it should be 310 votes. The petitioner has filed photo start copies of the final counting chart, prepared in Form No. 20 and Form No. 20a regarding; all the five Assembly Segments as Schedules 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, 2-D and 2-E and final results of the votes of all the five Assembly Segments, prepared in Form 20-A as Scheduled 2-F and has made part of the petition. The petitioner has also al leged that while counting the votes of Saidpur Assembly Segment in the first round at Table No. 10 the votes cast in favour of the petitioner were removed and total votes were shown as only 992, whereas 1000 votes were given for count ing at the said Table in the first round. Similarly, while counting of votes in first round at Table No. 12 two votes which were cast in favour of the petitioner were removed and total votes were shown only 998 to the disadvantage of the petitioner. 13. As stated above, there are no al legations of corrupt practices in the in stant petition. In F. A. Sapa v. Singora (supra) the Honble Supreme Court ob served as under: "the law in regard to the adjudication of an election dispute has been set out, as stated earlier, in Part VI of the R. P. Act, the provisions where of constitute a self contained code. There fore, an election petition calling in question the election of a returned candidate must be made in accordance with the provisions of this part of the statute. Under the provisions of this part an election petitioner calling in question the elec tion of a returned candidate must be founded on one or more of the grounds specified in Sections 100 and 101 for any of the reliefs specified in Section 84 there of. Section 100 specifies several grounds. Under the provisions of this part an election petitioner calling in question the elec tion of a returned candidate must be founded on one or more of the grounds specified in Sections 100 and 101 for any of the reliefs specified in Section 84 there of. Section 100 specifies several grounds. One of them being commission of a corrupt practice by the returned candidate. Section 83 (1) (a) stipulates that every election petition shall contain a con cise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. That means the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a com plete cause of action must be concisely stated in an election petition. Section 83 (1) (b) next re quires 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 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 create the scope, ambit and limits of the inquiry at the trial of the election petition. " In a very recent case of Ashwani Kumar Sharma v. Yaduvansh Singh, JT 1997 (9) SC 541 similar controversy came before the Honble Supreme Court, wherein on the petition of the respondent returned candidate the High Court has rejected the election petition itself on ap plication under Order VII, Rule 11, read with Order VI, Rule 16 of C. P. C. The said order was not affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "the election petition of the appellant does not allege any corrupt practice. Therefore, in the present case, the question of application of Section 83 (1) does not arise. The only relevant provisions, therefore, is section 83 (1) (a) which requires the petition to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. Therefore, in the present case, the question of application of Section 83 (1) does not arise. The only relevant provisions, therefore, is section 83 (1) (a) which requires the petition to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. "the language of Section 83 (1) (a) is similar to the language of Order 1, Rule 2 (1) which provides that every pleading shall contain and contain only a statement in a con cise form of material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. " By contrast under Section 83 (1) (b) not only is it necessary to set out full (as opposed to concise) particulars, but also a full statement of the names of parties who have al legedly committed a corrupt practice and the date and place of its commission. " We have, therefore, to see whether the election petition contains a concise statement of material facts i. e. , cause of action. The election petition of the appel lant, from paragraph 10 onwards deals with the counting of ballot papers and why according to the appellant, such counting was unfair, improper or not in accordance with law. He has alleged that the Return ing Officer did not comply with Rule 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and the instructions contained in the Hand book for Returning Officers. He has given particulars of some of the irregularities. In paragraph 15, for example, he has alleged that on counting table Nos. 11 and 12 ballot papers marked on hand symbol were mixed with those of other party can didates; and in the process ballot papers which were marked on "hand" were not being counted in favour of the appellant. The appellant has stated that his counting agents specifically stated to him when he visited the counting hall that hundreds of such ballot papers had already been mixed with the ballot papers in favour of an inde pendent candidate, respondent No. 9. He has alleged that 3530 votes which should have been counted in his favour were wrongly counted in favour of respondent No. 9. He has also referred to the contem poraneous written complaints lodged by him in this connection. He has alleged that 3530 votes which should have been counted in his favour were wrongly counted in favour of respondent No. 9. He has also referred to the contem poraneous written complaints lodged by him in this connection. In paragraph 16, detailed tables are given showing the wrong counting of votes cast in favour of the appellant which were counted as the votes of respondent No. 9. The numbers of such votes so counted on each counting table have been separately set out in tabular form in detail. The appellant has also sought leave to refer to and rely upon the various fax messages and complaints to the Returning Officer as well as to the General Observer made in this behalf by him. Amongst the other objections, he has alleged that at the stage of the fourth round of counting onwards, ballot papers of two different colours were seen. Despite the appellant complaining to the Return ing Officer about the different colours of ballot papers on the counting tables, no proper attention was paid to his com plaint. He has also set out that his count ing agents were not given a reasonable opportunity of inspecting ballot, papers before they were rejected. There are various other particulars set out in the election petition in support of the appellants contention regarding ir regularities and illegality in the counting of votes. Whatever be the merit of such con tentions, one thing at leat is clear. The elec tion petition cannot be rejected at a prelimi nary stage on the ground that it does not contain a concise statement of material facts. the High Court has held that the allegations regarding irregularities in the counting of ballot papers are not sup ported by adequate material or by material particulars. The High Court has further held that some imaginary figures are given in respect of alleged irregularities. The appellant has, in his verification affidavit, stated that the statements are based on information derived from his counting agents and election agents. The High Court holds that because the names of these persons are not disclosed, the allega tions must be considered as vague. The appellant has, in his verification affidavit, stated that the statements are based on information derived from his counting agents and election agents. The High Court holds that because the names of these persons are not disclosed, the allega tions must be considered as vague. The High Court has further said that the basis on which the counting agents or election agents of the appellant had furnished in formation regarding rejection of 2, 500 ballot papers on the ground that the same did not bear the distinguishing mark or the signature of the Presiding Officer, has also not been furnished. However, evidence in support of the pleas which have been taken or facts which have been pleaded, cannot be confused with the concise state ment of material facts which an election petition is required to set out under Sec tion 83 (1) (a ). In the case of Shri Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Sc India, 1988 1 SCC 511, "this Court made a distinction be tween material facts and material par ticulars. The Court said that his distinc tion was important because different con sequences may flow from a deficiency of such facts or particulars in the pleading. Failure to plead even a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of ac tion and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be struck off. But if material particulars are lacking, they may be supplied at a later date. Respondent No. 1 relies upon this distinction in sup port of his plea that the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-disclosure of material facts. The election petition, how ever, is required to contain a concise state ment of material facts, this being equivalent to a cause of action. The entire evidence in support of such material facts is not required to be set out (emphasis laid ). " 14. In another case of Jagjit Singh v. Dharm Pal Singh (supra), controversy was also raised whether the election petition contained concise statement of material facts, there were also allegations that the result of election was materially effected by improper rejection of votes. In that case number of votes improperly rejected, par ticular booth to which they relate, par ticular table at which the votes were counted and the grounds on which the votes were rejected were set out by the petitioner. Only serial Nos. In that case number of votes improperly rejected, par ticular booth to which they relate, par ticular table at which the votes were counted and the grounds on which the votes were rejected were set out by the petitioner. Only serial Nos. of the rejected ballot papers were not mentioned. The explanation offered for non-mention of serial Nos. by the petitioner was, as in the instant case that because of seating, arran gements (counting of votes took place be hind an iron gate and counting agents made to sit five to six ft. behind the net), no ballot papers were shown to the can didates of their agents during counting. On those facts, the Court held that the election petition contained material facts as required by Section 83 (1) (a) of the R. P. Act and the explanation furnished by the petitioner could not be ignored though truth or falsity there of had to be decided on the basis of evidence. 15. As to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that the basis of allegations or sources of infor mation have not been disclosed, the verification of the petition and of the schedules and annexures to the election petition are contrary and defective, the verification clause shows that the petitioner has verified the contents of the election petition on the basis of his per sonal knowledge and on the basis of infor mation received from his counting agents, election agents supporters and other can didates. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner the counting was being held simultaneously in three districts on the same day and so it was not practical for the petitioner to be physically present at all the three places and so on the basis of his personal knowledge and on the basis of the information received from his count ing agents election agents supporters and other candidates the contents of the elec tion petition have been verified. The argu ments of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be rejected outright. Further, in the case of EA. Sapa v. Singora (supra), the Honble Court after con sideration of the relevant provisions of R. P. Act and of the Code of Civil Proce dure days down as under:- "a defect in the verification, if any, can be cured. The argu ments of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be rejected outright. Further, in the case of EA. Sapa v. Singora (supra), the Honble Court after con sideration of the relevant provisions of R. P. Act and of the Code of Civil Proce dure days down as under:- "a defect in the verification, if any, can be cured. Mere defect in the verification of the election petition is not fatal to the main tainability of the petition and the petition cannot be thrown out solely on that ground. Since Sec tion 83 is not one of three provisions mentioned in Section 86 (1) ordinarily it cannot be con strued as mandatory unless it is shown to be an integral part of the petition under Section 81. It is not essential that the verification clause at the foot of the petition or the affidavit accompanying the same should disclose the grounds or sources of information in regard to the averments or allegations which are based on information believed to be true. If the respondent desires better par ticulars in regard to such averments or allega tions, he may call for the same in which case the petitioner may be required to supply the same. The defect in the affidavit in the prescribed Form 25 can be cured unless the affidavit forms an integral part of the petition, in which case the defect concerning material facts will have to dealt with, subject to limitation, under Section 81 (3 ). Similarly the court would have to decide in each individual case whether the schedule or annexure referred to in Section 83 (2) constitutes an integral part of the election petition or not; different considerations will fol low in the case of the former as compared to those in the case of the latter. " 16. In the cases of U. S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran, (supra), Shri Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, (supra) and Azahar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, (supra), the election was assailed on the ground of corrupt practices. The decisions in those cases do not help the respondents. The other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, in view of the later pronouncements of the Honble Supreme Court on the subject, in view of the facts of the instant case, are not of assistance. 17. The decisions in those cases do not help the respondents. The other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, in view of the later pronouncements of the Honble Supreme Court on the subject, in view of the facts of the instant case, are not of assistance. 17. There is positive assertion by the petitioner that before the declaration of the final result between 1 and 2 p. m. , a special news bulletin was broadcasted and televised by Doordarshan, whereby the petitioner was declared elected. 18. The allegations made in the peti tion do disclose material facts and cause of action and the instant case is not of such cases where the election petition can be rejected in limine on the ground of non- compliance with the provisions of the R. P. Act, on application of the respondents under Order VI, Rule 16, Order VII, Rule 11, read with Section 86 of the R. P. Act, 1951. 19. Consequently, the application of the respondent No. 1 Shri Vijay under Order VI, Rule 16, Order VII, Rule 11, Read with Section 86 (1) of the R. P. Act for striking of the paragraphs 9 to 16, 17 (i) to (xxxix), 18 and 19 of the election petition is dismissed. 20. Written statement by the respon dents be filed on 22-1-1999. List on 1-2-1999 for issues. Order accordingly. .