ORDER V.K. Agarwal, J. By this order, the application (I.A. No. 50/99) u/s 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), is being disposed off. By this election petition under sections 80-A and 81 of the 'Act' the petitioner challenges the election of the respondent to the legislative assembly in election held on 25-11-1998, from Raipur Gramin Assembly Constituency. The respondent averred in their application (I.A.50/99) that section 81(3) of the 'Act', requires that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signatures to be a true copy of the petition. It has been alleged in the application that the copies of the election petition as well as annexures, served on the respondent have not been duly attested to be true copy, and that the copies do not fulfil mandatory requirement as above, of section 81(3) of the 'Act'. It has therefore been prayed that the election petition be dismissed u/s 86(1) of the 'Act'. The election petitioner in his reply denied the averments as above. It was denied that the copies of the election petition and the annexures thereof do not meet the requirement of section 81(3) of the 'Act'. It was, therefore, prayed that the application (I.A. No. 50/99) u/s 86(1) of the 'Act' be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent has urged that each copy of the petition to be furnished in accordance with section 81(3) of the 'Act' is required to be mandatorily attested under the signature of the petitioner as true copy of the petition. It has been submitted that as the schedules and annexures to the petition form integral part of the petition; therefore, not only the copy of the petition but the schedules and annexures thereof are also required to be attested as true copy under the signature of the petitioner, u/s 81(3) of the 'Act'. Reference in this connection has been made by the learned, counsel for the respondent to a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Dr. Jaswant Singh Chowdhary vs. Mr. Paras Ram Maderna (14 ELR 530). It has further been submitted that the Apex Court in Sharif-ud-din Vs. Reference in this connection has been made by the learned, counsel for the respondent to a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Dr. Jaswant Singh Chowdhary vs. Mr. Paras Ram Maderna (14 ELR 530). It has further been submitted that the Apex Court in Sharif-ud-din Vs. Abdul Gani Lone, , has held that the requirement that copy of election petition intended for service on the respondent may be attested by the petitioner under his own signature, is a mandatory requirement and the non-compliance with that requirement should result in dismissal of the petition as provided in section 94(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of people Act, 1957 (4 of 1957), which corresponds to section 86(1) of the 'Act'. As against this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the copies served on the respondent were prepared by same mechanical process; by which the original election petition and its annexures were prepared. It has been submitted, in the above context, that the copy of main election petition served on the respondent is the carbon copy of the original election petition; while the annexures accompanying the original election petition are also photocopies of the original and that the copies thereof served on the respondent were also identical photocopies simultaneously prepared in the same process of photocopying. It has thus been submitted that the annexures filed along with the petition and that furnished to the respondent are identical in nature. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the copies have also been duly verified and attested under the signature of the petitioner as is the case with the annexures filed with the original petition. It has therefore been urged that there is no material difference between the annexures accompanying the election petition and the copies of annexures furnished to the respondent along with the copy of the election petition. It has further been submitted that since the copies of the petition as well as the annexures furnished to the respondent bear the signatures of the election petitioner below the endorsement of verification, the requirement of attestation of section 81(3) of the 'Act' stands duly complied with; and mere absence of words 'true copy' above the signatures of the election petitioner, would not attract the objection of non-compliance of section 81(3) of the 'Act'. The learned counsel for the election petitioner has thus submitted that since there was substantial compliance of section 81(3) of the 'Act', the objection raised on behalf of the respondent that the petition deserves to be dismissed u/s 86(1) of the 'Act', deserves to be rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection has relied upon Ch. Subbarao Vs. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, , Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Vs. Roop Singh Rathore and Others, and Anup Singh Vs. Shri Abdul Ghani and Another, . In view of the aforesaid objections raised by the respondent in I.A. No. 50/99, it has to be considered as to whether the copies of the petition and annexures thereof were duly attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition or not and as to whether the election petition deserves to be dismissed u/s 86(1) of the 'Act' for non-compliance of the said provision? To appreciate the above controversy in its true perspective section 81(3) of the 'Act' is reproduced which reads: 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. Thus in order to fulfil the requirements of section 81(3): (a) Election petition should be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents; and (b) Every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature as true copy of the petition. section 86(1) of the 'Act' provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or 82 or section 117 of the 'Act'. It was contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent that annexures to the petition are part of the petition and would also be required to be attested as per section 81(3) of the 'Act'. Thus, in order to meet requirement of section 81(3) of the 'Act' not only the copy of the petition but also the copies of the schedules and annexures thereof, should be duly attested as true copies. The above aspect has been considered in Sahodrabai Rai Vs. Thus, in order to meet requirement of section 81(3) of the 'Act' not only the copy of the petition but also the copies of the schedules and annexures thereof, should be duly attested as true copies. The above aspect has been considered in Sahodrabai Rai Vs. Ram Singh Aharwar, , wherein it was observed that details of the averments too compendious for being included in the election petition may be set out in the schedules or annexures to the election petition. The law requires that even though they are out side the election petition, but such annexures or schedules are then treated as integrated with the election petition and copies thereof must be duly attested and must be served on the respondents if the requirement regarding service of the election petition is to be wholly complied with. Thus, the requirement of sub-section (3) of section 81 of the 'Act' would be met when not only the election petition, but the copies of annexures accompanying it are duly attested. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the instant case the copy of election petition and copies of annexures accompanying it, have not been duly attested as true copies. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the copies of annexures furnished to the respondent are also identical photocopies annexed with the petition. The copy of the petition as well as copies of each of the annexures is also duly verified and the respondent has put his signatures on each or the said documents. The above factual aspect of the case has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. The objection appears to be that copies of the petition and the annexures have not been duly attested, as true copies by the election petitioner as is required under the later part of section 81(3) of the 'Act'. In the instant case, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the election petitioner, the copies of petition as well as annexures furnished to the respondent were prepared by the same mechanical process. The copy of the main petition furnished to the respondent is a carbon copy of the original; while the copies of annexures thereof are photocopies of the original documents. The annexures accompanying the election petition and the copies thereof supplied to the respondent, both are photocopies and are thus identical. The copy of the main petition furnished to the respondent is a carbon copy of the original; while the copies of annexures thereof are photocopies of the original documents. The annexures accompanying the election petition and the copies thereof supplied to the respondent, both are photocopies and are thus identical. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the above copies viz. the annexures accompanying the petition and the copies served on the respondent were prepared simultaneously by process of photocopying. It has not been disputed that the copies furnished as above are not true copies of the original. They also bear the original signature of the election petitioner below the verification clause, as would be evident on perusal thereof. In view of the above there appears to be substantial compliance of section 81(3) of the 'Act'. In Ch. Subbarao vs. Election Member Tribunal (supra), an objection was that there was non-compliance of section 81(3) of the 'Act'. It was observed therein that the election petitioner had complied with the following requirements: (i) The petition was accompanied by requisite number of copies; (ii) The copies that accompanied with the petition were true copies; (iii) Each of those copies bores the signatures of the petitioner. After referring to Murarka Reddy Shyam Ram Kumar vs. Roop Singh Rathore and others (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that there has been substantial compliance with the requirement of section 81(3) of the 'Act'. Therefore, the order or the High Court dismissing the said election petition upholding the objection u/s 81(3) of the 'Act' by the respondent was set aside. In Dr. Anoop Singh vs. Shri Abdul Ghani and others (supra), copies furnished to the respondents were carbon copies of the original accompanying the election petition and bore the signature of the petitioner, but the attestation required by section 81(3) was not specifically appended on the copies. The contention of the appellant in that case was that there was non-compliance of section 81(3) of the 'Act'. It was observed by the Apex Court that since the copies bear signature in original, it was sufficient to indicate that the copy was attested as a true copy even though the words true copy were not written above the signature in the copy. It was therefore held that there was substantial compliance u/s 81(3) of the 'Act', hence the election petition could not be dismissed. It was therefore held that there was substantial compliance u/s 81(3) of the 'Act', hence the election petition could not be dismissed. As noticed above, in the instant case, copy of the petition and annexures thereof, furnished to the respondent were undisputably the true copies of the election petition as well as of the annexures thereof. In fact, they were prepared by the same mechanical process in which the original election petition and the annexures enclosed therewith were prepared, inasmuch as the copy of the petition furnished to the respondent is the carbon copy of the election petition and the annexures thereof enclosed with the petition, as well as those furnished to the respondent were prepared simultaneously by preparing photocopies. The above factual aspect is not disputed, and it is not contended on behalf of the respondent that the copy of the petition and the annexures thereof are not the true copies of election petition or the annexures. Each of the copies bear the signature in original of the petitioner. Therefore, there appears to be substantial compliance of section 81(3) of the 'Act'. The respondent's objection u/s 81(3) of the 'Act' raised by I.A. No. 50/99 therefore cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the respondent's prayer that the election petition may be dismissed u/s 86(1) of the 'Act', does not deserve to be allowed. Therefore, I.A. No. 50/99 is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed