A.H.SAIKIA, J.— The maintainability of the Election petition No. 17/2001 presented by the opposite party/Election petitioner has been challenged by the respondent/applicant in this Misc. Case primarily on two grounds:- (a) That the instant election petition was not presented before this High Court in accordance with Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short the 'Act') read with Rule 1 of Chapter VIII A of the Gauhati High Court Rules (for short the 'Rules') and (b) That the copies furnished to the applicant/Respondent do not bear the mandatory requirement of attestation under his own signature of the O.P/Election Petitioner as required under Section 81(3) of the Act and accordingly the applicant has sought for summary dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act holding that the same to be not maintainable. 2. I have heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. V. Hansaria and S. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/respondent and Mr. A.B. Choudhury the learned counsel for the opposite party/Election Petitioner. 3. On consideration of the claims and counter claim advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in this Misc. application, this Court is of the view that since the question of presentation of the Election Petition itself is a purely disputed question of fact, the same needs to be formally proved by taking evidences in order to arrive at a just and proper decision on these contentious issues for which both the parties have agreed. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court by order dated 7.2.2002 while directing the parties to take necessary steps for issuance of summons for enforcing the attendance of the witnesses they may like to examine in this case, has framed the following issue as preliminary issue for its decision on maintainability. “Whether the election petition was presented by the election petitioner in person in accordance with Section 81(1) of the representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Rule 1 of Chapter VIII A of the Gauhati High Court Rules and if not, whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act.” 5. Be it mentioned herein that the learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed and pursued the second ground as regards the attestation of the copies of the Election petition furnished to the applicant. 6. Be it mentioned herein that the learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed and pursued the second ground as regards the attestation of the copies of the Election petition furnished to the applicant. 6. After framing such preliminary issue, as many as three witnesses have been examined by the Election petitioner/O.P. in order to prove the factum that election petition was presented by him in person for making the same maintainable when the applicant/respondent has not preferred to adduce any witness. 7. Before going to discuss and appreciate evidences of the witnesses, I would like to refer to the provisions of law laid down under Section 81(1) of the Act as well as Rule 1 of Chapter VIE A of the Rules are as follows :- “81 .Presentation of petitions - (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section(l) of Section 100 and Section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. Chapter VIIIA Special Provisions relating to procedure in election petitions under the representation of the Peoples Act. 1951 As Amended by Act No.XLVII of l966. 1. An election petition under Section 80-A of the Representation of the Peoples Act may be presented duly verified in the Form prescribed under Section 82 and 83 of the said Act, before the stamp reporter of this Court with a Court fee of Rs.6.00 affixed thereon, with 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the latter of those two dates. Every such petition shall be accompanied by - (a) as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition together with one extra copy, all the copies being fully attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition and as many envelopes as there are respondents bearing requisite postage stamps to enable service to be effected by registered post with acknowledgement due; (b) as many printed Forms of notices, duly filled in, as there are respondents; © an affidavit in support of the contents of the petition as prescribed in Rule 83(c) of the aforesaid Act where necessary, and (d) a Challah showing the deposit of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) into the State Bank of India, Guwahati Branch in favour of the Registrar of this Court, as security for the costs of the petition. Provided that such deposit in respect of petition to be filed in the Benches at Kohima, Imphal and Agartala may be made in the State Bank of Kohima, Imphal and Agartala, as the case may be, in favour of the Deputy Registrar of the Bench concerned.” 8. Any ordinary reading of those provisions go to show that an election petition must be presented by the petitioner in person before the Stamp Reporter within 45 days of the date of declaration of the result. 9. Admittedly, the last date for filing election petition in the instant case was 27.6.2001. It is alleged on behalf of the applicant that election petition was not filed on that day by presenting the same by the election petitioner in person before the Stamp Reporter as required. According to the applicant, a perusal of the check slip which has been affixed on the top of the election petition would go to show that the Stamp Reporter has put his signature with office seal on 3.7.2001 by which time there is already a delay of six days in filing the election petition as the statutory period for filing an application is only for forty five days. 10. The election petition has examined himself as P.W.-l .He has stated that the election petition was submitted on 27.6.2001 by him in person before the Stamp Reporter. After such presentation, the Stamp Reporter who is one Sri Yadav Ch. 10. The election petition has examined himself as P.W.-l .He has stated that the election petition was submitted on 27.6.2001 by him in person before the Stamp Reporter. After such presentation, the Stamp Reporter who is one Sri Yadav Ch. Deka examined the election petition alongwith the requisites and having found it in order, he accepted it and sent the same to the Dealing Assistant to put the filing seal. According to him the Dealing Assistant took the election petition and affixing the office seal, returned the election petition to Sri Yadav Ch. Deka, the Stamp Reporter who kept the petition with him. He also stated that his Advocate one Sri H.R.A. Choudhury requested him to make his report on the election petition but as there was rush on that day, Sri Deka told his Advocate that he would make the report afterwards and asked him to leave. It is stated by P.W-1 that Ext.l is the election petition and ext. 1 (1) his signature that he put before Yadav Ch. Deka and Ext.2(2) is the seal of this Court put by the Filing Assistant. On cross he has deposed that he filed a copy of the election petition to be served upon respondent with one registered envelop. Ext. 1 (1) is his signature by hand and other writings' filed by the petitioner in person on 27.6.2001' were written by his one Advocate H.R.A. Choudhury. He also deposed that Ext. A is the copy of the election petition served upon the respondent wherein in page-2 he put two signatures. As per his deposition he did not know whether Dealing Assistant put signature in the check slip on 27.6.2001 but he has denied the fact that he filed the election petition on 3.7.2001 in person. 11. RW.-2 Sri Jainal Abedin is a practicing Lawyer who has deposed that the election petitioner himself presented the election petition on 27.6.2001 before the Stamp Reporter namely Sri Yadav Ch. Deka. At the time of presentation of the election petition, according to him, he was present alongwith others counsel namely H.R.A. Choudhury, A.B. Choudhury, M.U. Mandal arid Miss Mahanta. He has adduced that after receiving the election petition along with other requisite papers Mr. Deka went through all the papers and on being satisfied he asked the dealing assistant Sri Rajkumar to put the filing seal on the election petition. He has adduced that after receiving the election petition along with other requisite papers Mr. Deka went through all the papers and on being satisfied he asked the dealing assistant Sri Rajkumar to put the filing seal on the election petition. He did not remember the putting of any serial number but he saw oval shape of filing seal putting in the election petition filed on 27.6.2001. He also stated that after putting the seal the dealing Assistant returned the papers including the election petition to Sri Yadav Ch. Deka, Stamp Reporter. On receipt of the election petition Sri Deka looked into the election petition and informed that everything was in form. Then Mr. H.R. A. Choudhury asked Mr. Deka to make report on the election petition but Deka replied that he was very much busy and the same will be done later on. On cross this witness has deposed that in the objection application Ext. B filed by the election petitioner in Misc. application challenging the maintainability of the election petition, there was no mention that other Advocates A.B. Choudhury, H.R. A. Choudhury, myself, Mr. M.U. Mandal and Miss H. Mahanta were present before filing of the election petition before the Stamp Reporter. He has stated that he did not notice if the Dealing Assistant put any signature on the paper on that day. In the check slip Ext. 'C' there was a signature of dealing Assistant. This signature is dated 28.6.2001 which has come under objection. He denied the fact that this objection petition was not filed on 27.6.2001. 12. PW-3 Yadav Ch. Deka, the Superintendent-cum-Stamp Reporter-cum-Commissioner of affidavit has been examined as P. W. 3. According to him the election petitioner came to his room on 27.6.2001 and presented the election petition in person. The said election petition was accompanied by all necessary requirements such as one extra copy of the election petition and as many as copies as there are other respondents and on being satisfied he handed over such election petition for putting Sl. No. as well as to affix date seal of the Section. Accordingly Assistant affixed the seal of the office showing the date as 27.6.2001 and put the Sl. No. as 5316. He has also deposed that Ext. 2 is the general filing register wherein Ext.2(l) is shown as Sl. No. 5316 and Ext. 2(2) was the date i.e. 27.6.2001. No. as well as to affix date seal of the Section. Accordingly Assistant affixed the seal of the office showing the date as 27.6.2001 and put the Sl. No. as 5316. He has also deposed that Ext. 2 is the general filing register wherein Ext.2(l) is shown as Sl. No. 5316 and Ext. 2(2) was the date i.e. 27.6.2001. According to him on that day as many as eight election petitions were field and due to such pressure of work, he could not give his formal report on the election petition on the very date and he had gave his formal report only on 3.7.2001. Ext. 3(1) was his report and Ext. 3(2) was his signature. He also stated that besides the petitioner, there were other Advocates who were present. He remembered only H.R.A. Choudhury who also filed an election petition on 27.6.2001. He has stated that inspite of the request of H.R. A. Choudhury, Advocate on that very day he could not do so as there were many election petitions and other works that to be attended by him. He has also categorically stated that Ext. C is the signature of dealing assistant putting the date as 28.6.2001. He did not know how the dealing assistant put the date as 28.6.2001 [Ext. C(l)]. According to him the election petition has been filed on 27.6.2001 within the stipulated time of 45 days. 13. On careful appreciation of the evidences of PW-1,2 and 3, it is seen that barring certain minor discrepancies, PW-3 Stamp Reporter has categorically stated that election petition was filed in person on 27.6.2001 by the election petitioner and the same is in total corroboration with the evidences of P. W.-1 and 2. 14. An appraising glance of the evidences of the three witnesses would clearly go to show that there is total consistency and conformity in the testimony of PW-1,2 and 3 as regards the factual matrix of presentation of the election petition on 27.6.2001. That being the position, I do not find any inconsistency or material irregularity or overwhelming reason to disbelieve the evidences of those witnesses and accordingly without any hesitation the evidence of the witness specially P. W.3 has been accepted by this Court. 15. That being the position, I do not find any inconsistency or material irregularity or overwhelming reason to disbelieve the evidences of those witnesses and accordingly without any hesitation the evidence of the witness specially P. W.3 has been accepted by this Court. 15. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also on appreciation of the material evidences as stated above, I am of the view that the election petition has been presented within 45 days of stipulated period and that too in substantial compliance of the requirements of Section 81(1) of the Act read with Rule 1 of Chapter VIII A of the Rules. 16. In view of the said finding, the preliminary issue as mentioned herein above is decided in favour of the election petitioner/O.P. and against the applicant/respondent. 17. For the reasons, discussions and observations indicated above, I am of the view that the election petition is maintainable. In the result, this Misc. case stands rejected.