Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the returned candidate in an election to the Padna Grama Panchayat of Kasaragod district. The election petition was filed as O.P. 30 of 2000 before the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg by the first respondent arraying the returned candidate/revision petitioner and three others as respondents. Since it was found by the Returning Officer that the number of valid votes polled in favour of the revision petitioner and the first respondent were equal, a declaration regarding election was made by draw of the lot. 2. The election was sought to be set aside on various grounds including irregularities in the procedure adopted by the Returning Officer for the draw; that there has been no proper verification of valid and invalid votes; that the counting and recounting process has been irregular; that the valid votes polled in favour of the first respondent have been rejected; that the revision petitioner is guilty of corrupt practices etc. 3. Upon entering appearance in response to the notice issued by the Court, the revision petitioner filed preliminary objections contending that the Original Petition itself is not legally maintainable and sought for its summary rejection. The lower Court overruled the preliminary objections and held that the Original Petition is maintainable. It is that order of the lower Court which is now sought to be revised by the revision petitioner. 4. Heard Shri. M. Ramesh Chander, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Shri. T.K. Vipindas, learned counsel for the first respondent. The counsel supplied me with photostat copies of relevant papers and I have perused them. 5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in an Original Petition where election is sought to be cancelled on grounds of corrupt practices, the Original Petition has to be filed strictly in accordance with S.91 and that the affidavit envisaged by S.91(c) should be in the proper format as the same is an integral part of the election petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the affidavit which had been filed along with the Original Petition was not strictly under Form No. 28 inasmuch as the affirmation should have been that the averments are true to the best of the deponent's knowledge and not upon information. 6. The learned counsel took me to R.62 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules in this regard. 6. The learned counsel took me to R.62 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules in this regard. Learned counsel also submitted that the pleading particularly the averments pertaining to corrupt practices are to be verified in compliance with the mandatory requirements of 0.6 R.15 C.P.C. and in the present case there is no such verification. The verification which actually appears is a different one. This deviation is fatal, the learned counsel argued on the authority of the Supreme Court in R.P. Moidutty v. P.I. Kunju Mohammed and another (AIR 2000 SC 388). The learned counsel also invited my attention to yet another decision of the Supreme Court in V. Narayanasawamy v. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu (2000 (2) SCC 294) in support of his argument that insufficiency of the affidavit regarding the corrupt practices alleged was sufficient for a summary rejection of the election petition. Learned counsel also took me to yet another decision of the Supreme Court in Kamalnath v. Sudesh Verma (2002 (2) SCC 410) wherein also the Supreme Court has underlined the importance of proper pleadings when elections are sought to be set aside on the ground of corrupt practices. Lastly, the learned counsel took me to the decision of this Court in A. Mohammed v. Nalakath Soopy (1997 (1) KLT 697) wherein this Court held that the theory of substantial compliance cannot be extended to cover up cases falling under S.81(3) of the Act referring to the Representation of People Act, 1951 which was exactly the corresponding provision in the Panchayat Raj Act also. 7. Shri. Vipindas, per contra, cited before me more recent decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Rambhau Karankal v. Chandrakant Batesingh Raghuwanshi & Ors. (JT 2001 (5) SC 245), the decision of this Court in Bindu v. Bindu Rajappan (2001(2) KLJ 280) (K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.), K. Muraleedharan v. V.V. Raghavan (1999 (2) KLT 377) (K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J) and also the decision of the Supreme Court in G. Mallikarjunappa v. Shamanur Shivashankarappa (2001 (4) SCC 428). I noticed a more recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Prasad Sarma v. Mani Kumar Subha (2003 (1) SCC 289). I have also noticed the decision of the Supreme Court in T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose (AIR 1999 SC 1359). 8. I noticed a more recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Prasad Sarma v. Mani Kumar Subha (2003 (1) SCC 289). I have also noticed the decision of the Supreme Court in T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose (AIR 1999 SC 1359). 8. A close scrutiny of the decisions referred to above will show that in the development of election law, the theory of substantial compliance when it comes to pleadings and formats of mandatory affidavits is slowly gaining momentum. 9. Notwithstanding the persuasive submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I do not find any reason to differ from the views of the learned Munsiff in the context of the preliminary objections raised. I am also of the view that the pleadings in this case have been sufficiently verified and that the affidavit regarding the corrupt practices alleged is in accordance with the form prescribed. There is satisfactory compliance in the matter of attestation of the affidavit, the mode of affirmation and verification contained in the affidavit as well as the pleadings. Applying the theory of probable prejudice to the revision petitioner also, I do not find any reason to non-suit the respondents at the threshold. Purity of election, in my view, is more important than any other consideration which is relevant in election law. The revision fails and it is dismissed.