RENU CHADHA v. ASHA KUMARI — 1998 DIGILAW 161 (HP)

JUDGMENT R.L KHURANA, J.—The Petitioner, Smt. Renu Chadha, who having contested the elections to the 9th Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) and lost herein, by virtue of the present petition preferred under Sections 80 and 81 read with Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, (for short the Act), has called in question the election of the Respondent, Smt. Asha Kumari, the returned candidate from 51, Banikhet Assembly Constituency. It has been prayed that the election of the Respondent from 51, Banikhet Assembly Constituency of Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, be declared null and void and set aside, and that the Respondent be declared to be disqualified from contesting the elections. 2. Briefly stated the case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent committed corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123 (7) of the Act, since she had obtained and procured the assistance of a Gazetted Officer, namely, Shri Attar Singh, District Primary Education Officer, Chamba, for the furtherance of the prospects of her election. It is averred that the Respondent, who at the relevant time was the Minister-in-charge of the Primary Education in the Government of Himachal Pradesh, through her influence got letters of appointment issued to various persons of the constituency on 6.2.1998, 7.2.1998 and 9.2 1998, appointed them as JBT teachers. For the purpose of issuance of such appointment letters, services of the above named Shri Attar Singh were procured for the furtherance of her election prospects. 3. Further case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent is also guilty of corrupt practice of bribery, as defined under Section 123 (1)(A)(b) of the Act, inasmuch as she had induced the electors to vote for her by giving them appointment/employment as part-time water carriers in different primary schools in her constituency. 4. 3. Further case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent is also guilty of corrupt practice of bribery, as defined under Section 123 (1)(A)(b) of the Act, inasmuch as she had induced the electors to vote for her by giving them appointment/employment as part-time water carriers in different primary schools in her constituency. 4. The Respondent, while resisting the Petition, has raised the following preliminary objections :— (i) the petition lacks concise statement of material facts on which the Petitioner relies with regard to corrupt practice; (ii) full particulars of corrupt practices as required under Section 83 (1)(b) of the Act have not been set forth; (iii) the petition has not been verified properly as required under Order 5, Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure; (iv) the schedules/annexures to the petition have not been signed and verified by the Petitioner in accordance with Order 5, Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure; (v) the affidavit in support of the petition is not in the prescribed form; (vi) the copy of the petition supplied to the respondent is not true copy of the original; (vii) the annexures/schedules which are integral part of the petition, have not been attested by the Petitioner to be true copy of the original; (viii) the allegations made in the petition do not constitute corrupt practices as provided under Section 123 of the Act; (ix) the verification/affirmation made by the Oath Commissioner on the affidavit is not in conformity with the requirement of Rule 94-A and From 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; (x) the copies of the petition do not conform to the original petition; and (xi) the annexures which have been filed with the copy of election petition served on the Respondent are illegible and incomplete. The following preliminary issues, therefore, were framed on 24.6.1998:— 1. Whether the Petitioner has not complied with the requirement of Section 83 of the Representation of People Act? If so, to what effect? OPR 2. Whether the copy of the election petition supplied to the Respondent is not a true copy of the petition and the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act have not been complied with? OPR 3. If so, to what effect? OPR 2. Whether the copy of the election petition supplied to the Respondent is not a true copy of the petition and the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act have not been complied with? OPR 3. Whether the allegations made in the election petition do not constitute corrupt practices as defined under Sections 123 (1-A), 123 (2) and 123 (7) of the Act and the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the annexures which have been annexed with the election petition are not legible and-complete? If so, its effect? OPR 5. Relief. The parties chose not to lead any evidence in support of the above issues. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above preliminary issues are as under :— Issue No. 1. Section 83 of the Act, which deals with "contents of petition", provides: “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, including 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 thereof. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the Petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition." 5. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the Petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition." 5. In the light of the above provisions, the learned Counsel for Respondent has raised the following contentions :— (a) the petition does not give material facts and full particulars; (b) the petition has not been properly verified; (c) the schedules/annexures to the petition have not been properly verified; and (d) the affidavit in support of the petition is not in the prescribed form; Section 83 (1)(a) of the Act requires a concise statement of material facts on which the Petitioner relies. This sub-section corresponds to order 6, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Order to constitute cause of action in favour of the Petitioner all the material facts, that is, the basic and primary facts, which the Petitioner is bound under the law to substantiate before he can succeed, have to be pleaded. In other words, all the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action have to be pleaded. The omission of a single fact leads to incomplete cause of action. Clause (b) of Section 83 (1) of the Act enjoins a duty on the Petitioner to set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that he alleges, including 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. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act requires that in case of petition based on allegations of corrupt practices, it shall be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegations of corrupt practices and the particulars thereof. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) to Section 83 and sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act require that the petition as well as the schedules/ annexures to the petition shall be signed and verified by the Petitioner in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, for the verification of pleadings. 6. The Honble Supreme Court in Samant N. Balakrishna, etc. 6. The Honble Supreme Court in Samant N. Balakrishna, etc. v. George Ferandez and others [AIR 1969 SC 1201], while holding the requirements of Section 83 of the Act as mandatory, has held:— "First Section 83 of the Act is mandatory and requires first a concise statement of material facts and then requires the fullest possible particulars. Second, omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. Third, the function of particulars is to present in full a picture of the cause of action to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. Fourth, material facts and particulars are distinct matters. Material facts will mention statements of fact and particulars will set out the names of persons with the date, time and place. Fifth, material facts will show the ground of corrupt practice and the complete cause of action and the particulars will give the necessary information to present a full picture of the cause of action. Sixth, in stating the material facts, it will not do merely to quote the words of the Section because then the efficacy of the material facts will be lost. The fact which constitutes a corrupt practice, must be stated and the fact must be correlated to one of the heads of corrupt practice. Seventh, an election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is no election petition at all. A petition which merely cites the sections cannot be said to disclose a cause of action where the allegation is the obtaining or procuring of assistance unless the exact type and form of assistance and the person from whom it is sought and the manner in which the assistance is to further the prospects of the election are alleged as statements of facts." It was further observed that : "Section 83 requires that the petition must contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the Petitioner relies and the fullest possible particulars of the corrupt practice alleged. Material facts and particulars1 may overlap but the word material shows that the grounds of corrupt practice and the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Material facts and particulars1 may overlap but the word material shows that the grounds of corrupt practice and the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. The function of the particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action to make, the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet............facts stated in the petition relating to any corrupt practice must be sufficient to constitute a cause of action. In other words, the fact must bring out all the ingredients of the corrupt practice alleged. If the facts stated fail to satisfy that requirement then they do not give rise to a triable issue. Such a defect cannot be cured by any amendment after the period of limitation for filing the election petition." As stated above, as per the case of Petitioner, the Respondent for the furtherance of her election prospects, is alleged to have committed corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 (1)(A)(b) and Section 123 (7) of the Act. 7. Section 123 of the Act, insofar as it is material for the purpose of this case, reads :— "The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:— (1) Bribery, that is to say— (A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing— (a) ....................................... (b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to— (i ..................................... (ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting; (B)...................................................... Explanation.—For the purposes of this Clause the term gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in Section 78. (2) ............................ (3) ............................ (4) ............................ (5) ............................ (6) ............................ (2) ............................ (3) ............................ (4) ............................ (5) ............................ (6) ............................ (7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidates election, from any person in the person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the following classes, namely:— (a) gazetted officers; (b) stipendiary Judges and Magistrates; (c) members of the armed forces of the Union; (d) members of the police forces; (e) excise officers; (f) revenue officers other than village revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars, patels, deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to collect land revenue and who are remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount of land revenue collected by them but who do not discharge any police functions; and (g) such other class of persons in the service of the Government as may be prescribed : Provided that where any person, in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the classes aforesaid, in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty, makes any arrangements or provides any facilities or does any other act or thing, for, to, or in relation to, any candidate or his agent or any other person acting with the consent of the candidate or his election agent (whether by reason of the office held by the candidate or for any other reason, such arrangements, facilities or act or thing shall not be deemed to be assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidates election. (8).................................." For the purpose of Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Act, there must be allegations that there has been any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification to any person whomsoever, with the object of inducing an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election. 8. The averments as to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Act are contained in para 5 of the petition. 8. The averments as to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Act are contained in para 5 of the petition. The opening part of the said para reads:— "That the respondent has committed the corrupt practice of bribery as defined under Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Act by inducing the electors to vote for her by giving them appointment/employment as part-time water carrier in different primary schools in her constituency...............”. (Emphasis supplied) The learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the above said averments lack in material facts inasmuch as there is nothing in these averments that "inducement was made to the electors of the constituency of the respondent." By drawing the attention of this Court to the definition of the term "elector” as contained in Clause (e) of Section 2(1) of the Act it has been contended that it was incumbent on the petitioner to have pleaded that inducement in the form of employment was made by the respondents to the electors of her constituency. Clause (e) of Section 2(1) of the Act defines "elector" in the following term:— "elector in relation to a constituency means a person whose, name is entered in the electoral roll of that constituency for the time being in force and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950)". 9. In Dhartipakar Maddn Lal Agarwal v. Shri Rajiv Gandhi, AiR 1987 ISC 1577), it had been held:— "... The Representation of the People Act is a complete and self contained Code within which any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute must be found. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the extent as permissible by Section 87 of the Act. The scheme of the Act as noticed earlier would show that art election can be questioned under the statute as provided by Section 80 on the grounds as contained in Section 100 of the Act. Section 83 lays down a mandatory provision in providing that an election petition shall contained a concise statement of material facts and set forth full particulars of corrupt practice. The pleadings are regulated by Section 83 and it makes it obligatory on the election petitioner to give the requisite facts, details and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude. Section 83 lays down a mandatory provision in providing that an election petition shall contained a concise statement of material facts and set forth full particulars of corrupt practice. The pleadings are regulated by Section 83 and it makes it obligatory on the election petitioner to give the requisite facts, details and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude. If the election petition fails to make out a ground under Section 100 of the Act it must fail at the threshold. Allegations of corrupt practice are in the nature of criminal charges, it is necessary that there should be no vagueness in the allegations so that the returned candidate may know the case he has to meet. If the allegations are vague and general and the particulars of corrupt practice are not stated in the pleadings, the trial of the election petition cannot proceed for want of cause of action. The emphasis of law is to avoid a fishing and roving inquiry. It is, therefore, necessary for the Court to scrutinise the pleadings relating to corrupt practice in a strict manner." 10. In FA. Sapa, etc. etc. v. Singora and others, [AIR 1991 SC 1557], it has been held that a charge of corrupt practice has a two dimensional effect, that is, its impact on the returning candidate has to be viewed from the point of view of the candidates future political and public life and from the point of view of the electorate to ensure purity of the election process. Therefore, an allegation involving corrupt practice must be viewed very seriously and compliance of Section 83 of the Act should be ensured before the parties go to trial. 11. It is well settled that the main object of insisting on the pleadings being clear is that the other party may have proper notice of the grounds of attack which he has to meet. The pleadings are not to be scrutinised with meticulous care and the form is not of importance. The important thing is whether in substance the petition contains the particulars ground of attack or not. 12. The Supreme Court in KM. Nani, etc. v. RJ. Antony and others, etc. The pleadings are not to be scrutinised with meticulous care and the form is not of importance. The important thing is whether in substance the petition contains the particulars ground of attack or not. 12. The Supreme Court in KM. Nani, etc. v. RJ. Antony and others, etc. [AIR 1979 SC 234] has held that the allegation(s) as to commission of a corrupt practice are to be read as a whole and not to disjoint it or to tear a line here or a line there, from the context. 13. If the above test is applied to the averments made in para 5 of the petition, it is evident that such averments taken as a whole relate to the allegations regarding the commission of the corrupt practice with in the meaning of Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Act and the reference made to the "electors" in this para pertains to the electors of the constituency of the respondent. 14. Insofar as the allegations of commission of corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(7) of the Act, as contained in para 4 of the petition are concerned, the learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that these averments lack in material particulars since the petitioner has failed to plead: (a) the date from which the respondent gave herself out as a candidate; and (b) that the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 123 of the Act does not apply. 15. The election programme as notified has been fully set out by the petitioner in para 1 of the petition. According to this programme, nominations papers were to be filed from 28,1.1998 to 4.2.1998. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was to be held on 5.2.1998. Last date for the withdrawal of nominations was fixed as 7.2.1998. Symbols were to be allotted after 3 p.m on 7.2.1998. Polling date was fixed as 28.2.1998 and counting of votes on 2.3.1998. There is an averment in para 4 of the petition that the respondent filed her nomination papers on 3.2.1998. Section 79(b) defines a "candidate" as meaning a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. 16. Polling date was fixed as 28.2.1998 and counting of votes on 2.3.1998. There is an averment in para 4 of the petition that the respondent filed her nomination papers on 3.2.1998. Section 79(b) defines a "candidate" as meaning a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. 16. In view of the definition of "candidate" as detailed above, with the filing of nomination by the respondent on 3.2.1998, she must be deemed to have claimed herself as a duly nominated candidate at the election with effect from the said date. It is pertinent to note that the respondent in her written statement has nowhere denied the filing of nomination papers by her on 3.2.1998. 17. Therefore, reading the pleadings contained in para 4 of the petition, as a whole, it can be said that the date from which the respondent gave herself out as a candidate stands specifically pleaded by the petitioner 18. The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure the assistance of a gazetted officer by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, for the furtherance of the prospects of the candidatess election, is a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (7) of Section 123 of the Act. The proviso to sub-section (7) saves certain acts of such gazetted officers when performed in the discharge of their official duties from being treated as assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the candidates election. 19. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, under Section 83(1 )(a) and (b) of the Act, the petitioner should have pleaded the material facts and particulars to show that the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 123 of the Act does not apply in the present case. 20. I do not find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is well settled principle of law that the party relying upon an exception or proviso to a provision of law has to plead and prove the material facts so as to bring his case within the ambit of the exception or the proviso. 20. I do not find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is well settled principle of law that the party relying upon an exception or proviso to a provision of law has to plead and prove the material facts so as to bring his case within the ambit of the exception or the proviso. Since the respondent is relying upon the proviso to Section 123(7) of the Act, it is for her to plead and prove the material facts and to show that the proviso is applicable and that the alleged acts performed by the gazetted officer, Shri Attar Singh are saved from the rigour of subsection (7) to Section 123 of the Act. 21. The second contention raised on behalf of the respondent is that the petition has not been verified properly. It has further been contended that the schedule/annexures attached to the petition have not been properly verified. , Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act provides 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. Rule 15 of Order 6, Code of Civil Procedure, deals with verification of pleadings. It reads:— "15. Verification of pleadings.— (1) 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 pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction 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 pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. (3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed." 22. (3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed." 22. The petition in the present case has been verified by the petitioner in the following terms:— "Verified at Shimla this 15th day of April, 1998 that contents of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7 to 9 are true and correct to my knowledge, whereas paragraphs 4,5 and 6 are based on the information received from Shri Amar Nath, son of Shri Puran resident of Kunna, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., which I believe to be true. No part of it is false and nothing is kept concealed." The learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that after paragraph 9, the petition contains a prayer clause, but such prayer Clause has not been verified and thus there has been non-compliance of Section 83(1)(c) of the Act. Sub-section (2) to Section 83 of the Act also provides that any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be singed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. Insofar as the verification of the petition is concerned, no fault can be found therewith. A learned Single Judge (P.K. Palli, J.) of this court in Dile Ram v. Tek Chand (Election Petition No. 2 of 1998), on 3.8.1998, has held that failure to verify the prayer Clause of the election petition is not fatal. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner during the course of hearing has readily conceded that the annexures attached to the petition have not been properly verified. 23. It has been held in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v./. Roop Singh Rathore, [AIR 1964 SC 1545] and in FA. Sapa, etc. etc. v. Singora and others, etc. [AIR 1991 SC 1557], that mere defect in the verification is not fatal and the election petition cannot be thrown out solely on that ground and that the defect can be removed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. 24. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act provides 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 particulars thereof. 24. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act provides 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 particulars thereof. Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 lays down that the affidavit referred to jn the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act shall be sworn before a Magistrate of the first class or a Notary or a Commissioner of Oaths and shall be in Form 25. 25. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, while the affidavit in form 25 requires that the same should be "solemnly affirmed/ sworn" by the petitioner either before a Magistrate or a Notary or a Commissioner of Oaths, the affidavit in the present case contains an endorsement by the Commissioner of Oaths as "Declared before me on oath affirmation." Therefore, the affidavit is not in conformity with the statutory requirement and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. 26. Though no fault can be found in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, even if it be assumed that the affidavit is not proper, the defect is not fatal. In Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh and others and in F.A. Sapa, etc. v. Singora and others (supra), it has been held that where the affidavit is in the prescribed form but there is a mistake in the verification portion of the affidavit, such mistake cannot be a ground for the dismissal of the petition summarily and that the defect in the affidavit can be allowed to be removed by calling upon the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit within the time to be fixed for the same. 27. It is, therefore, held that the petitioner with the exception of proper verification of the annexures/schedule attached to the petition, has complied with the requirements of Section 83 of the Act. Insofar as defect in the verification of annexures/schedule to the petition is concerned, the same is not fatal and the petitioner is called upon to file fresh annexures/schedules with proper verification within a period of two weeks from today. The issue is decided accordingly. Issues No. 2 and 4. 28. Both these issues being inter-linked and inter-connected are being taken up for disposal together. The issue is decided accordingly. Issues No. 2 and 4. 28. Both these issues being inter-linked and inter-connected are being taken up for disposal together. Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act, provides:— "(3) 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." The learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the provisions contained in Section 81(3) of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance thereof is fatal to the very maintainability of the petition and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed summarily without going into any other questions as laid down under Section 86 of the Act. 29. The objection raised on behalf of the respondent is that though at pages 1 to 13 of the copy of the petition supplied to her, the signatures of the petitioner appear at the bottom, the words "attested to be true copy" are not mentioned above such signatures. Further objection raised is to the effect that on page 14 of the petition, which is the concluding page, the endorsement appearing above the signatures of the petitioner is "certified to be true copy of the original petition." According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, 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", therefore, by using the word "certified" instead of the word "attested", there has been a non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in the section. 30. It has further been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the copies of Annexures P-1 to P-19 supplied are not legible and complete, therefore, the petition merits dismissal on this short ground alone. 31. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner along with the Photostat copies (Annexures P-1 to P-19) has also filed typed copies of the documents which have been marked_ as Annexures P-1-A to P-19-A. These typed copies have also been "attested as true copy of the certified annexures" and verified. 32. 31. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner along with the Photostat copies (Annexures P-1 to P-19) has also filed typed copies of the documents which have been marked_ as Annexures P-1-A to P-19-A. These typed copies have also been "attested as true copy of the certified annexures" and verified. 32. The question arising in the present case under the two issues in hand had also arisen in Dile Ram v. Tek Chand, Election Petition No. 2 of 1998 (supra), and on similar facts it was held that the copy of the petition supplied to the respondent was a true copy of the original petition. 33. Even though the Annexures P-1 to P-19 (which are photostat copies of the documents) are somewhat illegible, no defect can be found therewith since the petitioner has also enclosed typed copies of the same as Annexure P-1-A to P-19-A and copies thereof stand supplied to the respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the copies of annexures supplied are not legible. 34. The two issues are accordingly decided against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner. Issue No. 3. 35. The question involved under the present issue stands discussed under issue No. 1 above. For the reasons recorded therein, the present issue is decided against the respondent. Relief. 36. For the reasons recorded under issues No. 1 to 4 above, the petition does not suffer from any fatal defect, so as to entail its dismissal summarily. The petitioner shall file a fresh set of Annexures P-1 to P-19 containing the verification in accordance with Section 83(2) of the Act, within the above stipulated period. Order accordingly.