JUDGMENT P.V. Hardas. J. - The election petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate at the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of Goa, held on 30th May, 2002, has challenged the election of the respondent No.1, the returned candidate, who was declared elected from the Vasco-da-Gama, Assembly constituency. The Chief Electoral Officer of the State of Goa by Notification No.464/Goa-LA/2002, dated 6th May, 2002 and under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, had called upon the Assembly constituencies of the State of Goa to elect members to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa and had further appointed the dates for different stages of the election by publication in the Official Gazette, Series II, No.5, Extraordinary, dated 6th May, 2002. The copy of the Gazette is annexed to the ejection petition as Exhibit ‘B’. The election petitioner was nominated as a candidate at the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa from the Vasco-da-Gama constituency. The returned candidate was also nominated as a candidate at the said General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa from the Vasco-da-Gama Assembly constituency. The Returning Officer had published a list of contesting candidates under Rule 31(1)(b) on 16th May, 2002. The list of the names of the candidates for contesting the elections and the symbols allotted to each of them is annexed to the petition as Exhibit 'E'. In Exhibit 'E' the name of the election petitioner appears at serial No.3 and the name of the returned candidate/respondent No.1 appears at serial No.1. 2. The ground taken in the present election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate/respondent No.1 is that on the date of nomination and the date of election of respondent No.1 he was disqualified as the respondent No.1 was the Chairman of the Goa State Scheduled Castes and other Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd., and, as such, was holding an office of profit under the Government of Goa and that the respondent No.1/returned candidate has committed corrupt practices, which are stated in paragraphs 14(a) to (1). 3. In response to the notice being issued by this Court, the respondent No.1/returned candidate filed an application at Exhibit 12 under Order VII. Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act. 3. In response to the notice being issued by this Court, the respondent No.1/returned candidate filed an application at Exhibit 12 under Order VII. Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act. In the said application various grounds have been raised for dismissal of the election petition. The election petitioner has filed his reply to the application at Exhibit 12 and the reply of the election petitioner is at Exhibit 23. 4. The parties to the proceedings had submitted draft issues. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following issues have been framed ; "1. Whether the respondent No.1 proves that the election petition is liable to be rejected under Section 81(1) read with Section 86 of the Act by reason of it being barred by limitation? 2. Whether the respondent No.1 proves that the election petition is liable to be rejected in limine under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by reason of its non-compliance with Sections 81(3), 83(1)(a), 83(1)(c) and 83(2) of the said Act? 3. Whether the respondent No.1 proves that the election petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) of the CPC read with Section 87 of the said Act by reason of non-disclosure of any cause of action?" 5. In support of the prayer for dismissal of the election petition, the respondent No.1/returned candidate has examined one witness. The respondent No.1/returned candidate examined Miss. Gandhali N. Pednekar, an Advocate practising at Panaji, as his witness. The affidavit by way of examination-in-chief of RW 1 Gandhali Pednekar is at Exhibit 32. RW 1 Gandhali Pednekar in her affidavit states that she is a practising Advocate and is a junior of Advocate Vilas P. Thali, the Advocate for respondent No.1/returned candidate. She has been assisting Advocate Shri Thali in the present election petition. She has further stated that the present election petition was listed on board for admission before this Court on 2nd August, 2002. She has stated that, on 2nd August, 2002, Advocate Vilas Thali filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.1 and this Court was pleased to direct the Registry to supply a copy of the petition to the learned counsel Shri Vilas Thali, appearing for respondent No.1. She has stated that, on 2nd August, 2002, Advocate Vilas Thali filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.1 and this Court was pleased to direct the Registry to supply a copy of the petition to the learned counsel Shri Vilas Thali, appearing for respondent No.1. She has further stated that immediately after the hearing of the matter was over she alongwith her senior Advocate Shri Vilas Thali went to, the Assistant Registrar of this Court arid her senior Advocate Shri Vilas Thali informed the Assistant Registrar about the order of this Court, dated 2nd August, 2002 and requested the Assistant Registrar to furnish a copy of the election petition. She has also stated that the Assistant Registrar, accordingly, served a copy of the election petition alongwith its annexures to Advocate Shri Vilas Thali in her presence. The copy received by Advocate Shri Vilas Thali in her presence. On 2nd August, 2002 from the Assistant Registrar of this Court is at Exhibit RW 11. She has further stated that, subsequently, on 10th August, 2002 the bailiff of this Court served two more copies of the election petition alongwith the annexures and the notice of this Court. She has also stated that since her senior Advocate Vilas Thali had already been served with a copy of the election petition alongwith its annexures on 2nd August, 2002, RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar, on the same day that is, on 19th August, 2002, returned one copy of the election petition together with the annexures to the Assistant Registrar of this Court. while retaining the notice issued by this Court, which was accompanying the copy of the election petition. The notice accompanying the election petition, which was served on RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar, is at Exhibit RW 2. She has stated that, out of the two copies served by the bailiff. she had retained one copy of the election petition together with the annexures and the notice of this Court. The copy of the election petition, so retained by RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar, together with the notice of this Court are at Exhibit RW 3. 6. In the cross-examination on behalf of the election petitioner, RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar has admitted that she has personal knowledge that Advocate V.P. Thali filed vakalatnama on 2nd August, 2002 on behalf of respondent No.1. 6. In the cross-examination on behalf of the election petitioner, RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar has admitted that she has personal knowledge that Advocate V.P. Thali filed vakalatnama on 2nd August, 2002 on behalf of respondent No.1. She has also admitted that she has not filed the vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.1. The attention of the witness was, thereafter, drawn to a vakalatnama placed in the Miscellaneous File, dated 4th August, 2002, filed by Advocate V.P. Thali on behalf of respondent No.1. The said vakalatnama is at Exhibit RW 4. On perusal of the said vakalatnama. Exhibit RW 4. RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar stated that there is an endorsement of the Senior Superintendent (Judicial Branch) of having received the said vakalatnama on 6th September, 2002. She also admitted the suggestion that the vakalatnarna at Exhibit RW 4 was filed on 6th September, 2002. The attention of this witness was then drawn to her statement in paragraph 2 of the affidavit. which reads as under. "that on 2.8.2002, my senior. Advocate Vilas Thali, field his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.1." She admitted the statement to be correct. The witness volunteered that Advocate Shri Vilas Thali has stated before the Court that he was appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and had tendered the vakalatnama at Exhibit RW 4 before the Court and the Court had asked Advocate Vilas Thali to file the vakalatnama in the Registry. The witness further admitted that the vakalatnama is dated 4th August, 2002. She denied the suggestion that on 2nd August. 2002 Advocate V.P. Thali did not have a vakalatnama signed by respondent No.1. She also denied any knowledge if respondent No.1 had received any summons to appear in this Court on 2nd August, 2002. Similarly, she denied any knowledge whether respondent No.1 had not received any summons to appear in this Court on 2nd August, 2002. She has stated that she had accompanied Advocate Shri V.P. Thali to the Registry before 1.00 p.m. to collect the copy of the petition on behalf of the respondent No.1. She has also stated that she cannot say whether the order dated 2nd August, 2002, was signed when she accompanied Shri V.P. Thali to the Registry for obtaining copy of the election petition on behalf of respondent No.1. She has also stated that she cannot say whether the order dated 2nd August, 2002, was signed when she accompanied Shri V.P. Thali to the Registry for obtaining copy of the election petition on behalf of respondent No.1. She has volunteered "I accompanied Advocate V.P. Thali to the Registry after the order was dictated in open Court". She has also admitted that Advocate V.P. Thali did not make any endorsement of having received a copy of the election petition. Exhibit RW 1, on behalf of respondent No.1. She admitted her signature on the summons "at Exhibit RW 5 in token of having received a copy of the election petition and has also admitted to have put the date 19th August 2002, beneath her signature. She has admitted that Exhibit RW 5 is the original of Exhibit RW 2. She has denied the suggestion that in her presence Advocate V.P. Thali did not receive the copy of the petition at Exhibit RW 1 on 2nd August, 2002. She also denied the suggestion as false that she was deposing in order to oblige Advocate Shri V.P. Thali in sustaining the preliminary issues, which have been framed. She has admitted that the examination form dated 18th July, 2002, was signed by the Section Officer (Judicial), which is at Exhibit RW 7. 7. In the re-examination she has stated that she has no personal knowledge regarding the date on which the vakalatnama at Exhibit RW 4 was signed by the respondent No.1. She has volunteered that the said vakalatnama was with Advocate Shri V.P. Thali on 2nd August, 2002 duly signed by respondent No.1. In the re-examination she has admitted that she has not actually seen respondent No.1 signing the vakalatnama and delivering the same to Advocate V.P. Thali. 8. After the examination of RW 1 Advocate Miss Gandhali Pednekar, the respondent No.1 filed a pursis at Exhibit 33 stating therein that the respondent No.1 does not want to examine any other witness. The election petitioner also filed a pursis at Exhibit 34 stating that the election petitioner does not wish to examine any witness at this stage. 9. I have heard Advocate Thali on behalf of the returned candidate/respondent No.1 and Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned counsel on behalf of the election petitioner. 10. The election petitioner also filed a pursis at Exhibit 34 stating that the election petitioner does not wish to examine any witness at this stage. 9. I have heard Advocate Thali on behalf of the returned candidate/respondent No.1 and Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned counsel on behalf of the election petitioner. 10. In respect of issue No.1, the first issue which is framed is whether the respondent No.1 proves that the election petition is liable to be rejected under Section 81(1) read with Section 86 of the Act by reason of it being barred by limitation. The elections were admittedly held on 30th May, 2002. The results of the election were announced by Notification dated 2nd June, 2002. The election petition was filed in this Court on 16th July, 2002. As per Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the limitation prescribed for filing an election petition calling in question any election is 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. Since there is only one returned candidate, the limitation will have to be reckoned as within 45 days from the date of the election of the returned candidate. Mr. Thali, the learned counsel appealing for the respondent No.1, has very fairly stated that the election petition has been filed on the last date of the prescribed period of limitation and, therefore, the election petition has been properly filed under Section 81 of the Act. Thus, issue No.1 is answered in the negative by holding that the respondent No.1 has failed to prove that the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 81 (1) read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by reason of it being barred by limitation. 11. As to Issue No.2. In order to effectually decide this issue and the objections raised regarding the filing of the election petition, this issue can be sub-divided, for the purpose of appreciating the arguments as under ; (A) The respondent No.1/returned candidate has stated that the election petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the copy of the election petition, which is supplied to the respondent No.1/returned candidate, is not a true copy. The respondent No.1/returned candidate has, therefore, contended that there is breach of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the-People Act, 1951. 12. Mr. The respondent No.1/returned candidate has, therefore, contended that there is breach of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the-People Act, 1951. 12. Mr. Thali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/returned candidate has submitted that the respondent has examined RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar. She has stated that, on 2nd August. 2002. she accompanied her senior Advocate Vilas Thali to the Registry of this Court and had received a copy of the petition, which is at Exhibit RW/1. It is, thus, stated that the copy of the election petition at Exhibit RW 1 is not a true copy of the petition, which is filed in this Court. It is stated that at internal page 10 of Exhibit RW 1, after the prayer clause, there is no signature of the election petitioner. Similarly, after the verification, there is no signature of the election petitioner. The stamp in respect of swearing of the affidavit is also absent on Exhibit RW1. The affidavit accompanying the petition also does not bear the signature of the deponent. Though Mr. Thali has admitted that the respondent No.1/returned candidate has received subsequently two copies of the election petition, out of which one copy was returned, and that the copy received by the respondent No.1/returned candidate subsequently is a true copy, non-compliance of Section 81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, would result in dismissal of the petition. 13. Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act enjoins that the election petition shall be accompanied with as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and secondly, every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be true copy of the petition. Thus the copy which is to be supplied to the respondent No.1/returned candidate, should be a true copy. A true copy would. therefore, mean a copy which is wholly and substantially, the same as the original. If the copy contains important omissions and substantial variations, then it would amount to non-compliance of statutory provisions. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/returned candidate has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Jagannath Shindu Rahane v. Smt. Manisha Manohar Nimkar; 1996 (3) All MR 475. If the copy contains important omissions and substantial variations, then it would amount to non-compliance of statutory provisions. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/returned candidate has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Jagannath Shindu Rahane v. Smt. Manisha Manohar Nimkar; 1996 (3) All MR 475. Reliance is placed on the observations of the learned Single Judge at paragraphs 34 and 35 of the report which read as follows : "34. The various flaws/mistakes/omissions highlighted and pointed out and which have been enumerated hereinabove with regard to the copy of the petition furnished to the respondent are discernible to naked eye and this could be ascertained by a comparison of the copy supplied to the respondent from the original petition. The petitioner has filed .the affidavit in support of election petition which is at pages 33-34. True it is that in this petition the petitioner has not taken up the ground of corrupt practice questioning the election of the respondent. But it would be besides the point. In the matter herein the fact remains that the petitioner has in fact made an affidavit and has annexed the same to the petition. We are concerned mainly whether there is a compliance of Section 81 of the said Act in furnishing a true copy of the petition. The various flaws in the copy of the petition furnished to the respondent have been noted hereinabove in para 14 to which there is no dispute and in my view there cannot be also as the same are apparent on the face of it. Section 81 of the said Act contemplates of furnishing the true copy of the petition and the petition would include in the context of supply of copy thereof, alongwith the petition all its exhibits, annexures and schedules, which forms its integral part. It is undisputed fact that the affidavit forms part of election petition and the copy furnished thereof does not indicate whether in fact the same was affirmed by the petitioner. Same also does not show the name and designation of the affirming authority. In my view, these are serious lacunae and. omissions on the part of the petitioner. 35. It is undisputed fact that the affidavit forms part of election petition and the copy furnished thereof does not indicate whether in fact the same was affirmed by the petitioner. Same also does not show the name and designation of the affirming authority. In my view, these are serious lacunae and. omissions on the part of the petitioner. 35. Similarly, the concise statement which is at pages 31 and 32 of the election petition, the filing of which is statutory requirement as contained in sub-section (1) of Section 83(1) of the said Act. From the original petition it is noticed that the petitioner has affirmed and verified the same before the Associate, High Court, Bombay. However, as noticed and pointed out earlier, copy furnished to the respondent does not so indicate." 15. Reliance is then placed on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Narendra Bhikani Darade v. Kalyanrao Jaywantrao Patil and others, AIR 2000 Bombay 362. In the aforesaid judgment one of the defects that was pointed out in respect of the copy received by the returned candidate was the name and designation of the officer before whom the verification was verified was not there. The second defect that was pointed out was that the concise statement of material facts contained in the copy of the petition was not verified in the manner verified and signed in the original copy of the petition. The other defect was that the copy of the affidavit annexed to the copy of the petition supplied to the respondent was lacking the name of the person before whom it was affirmed. The learned single Judge of this Court in paragraph 19 has held thus : "19. In the light of the above observations omissions to write name of the attesting officer held to be not fatal and can be found that Section 81(3) has been substantially complied with. But T.M. Jacob's, case, AIR 1999 SC 1359 , cannot be used by the petitioner in this case. In that case only signature of the officer was missing. Instead, it was written "Sd." and below that name of the officer was written. In that circumstances, Supreme Court has held that defect is not fatal and held to be substantially complied with. But here in this case, name of the officer was missing and verification is also not there. In that case only signature of the officer was missing. Instead, it was written "Sd." and below that name of the officer was written. In that circumstances, Supreme Court has held that defect is not fatal and held to be substantially complied with. But here in this case, name of the officer was missing and verification is also not there. If one receives a copy of the Election petition, naturally doubt may arise and confusion may creep in as to whether it was signed by a proper officer and as to what objection he has to raise in the Election petition, therefore, absence of the name of the officer before whom the petitioner put signature cannot be said to be one that can be substantially complied with. It is really a fatal defect. Other defects pointed out that the absence of verification as prescribed under law in the annexure and absence of attestation of true copy under the signature of the petitioner has also to be found to be fatal. Moreover defect No.(iii) of supplying document and annexures along with copy different from that of the original is liable to mislead the respondent No.1 in formulating his defence as held in Dr. Shipra's case AIR 1996 SC 169." The learned single Judge has further held in paragraph 22 as under : "22. Here in the present it is not non-supply of material particular only but non-verification of concise statement and affidavit. Therefore it cannot be said that a true copy has been supplied to respondent No.1. In view of the above observation of the Narayanswami's, case AIR 2000 SC 694 , non-verification of concise statement of material facts and affidavit in the copy of the Election petition cannot be considered to be curable defect by way of an amendment of the Election petition." 16. Reliance is next placed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/returned candidate on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Baban Yadav v. Shri Abdul Kadir and others, AIR 1998 Bombay 6. In that case the name of the officer, who had administered oath to the petitioner or before whom the petitioner had verified the petition, was not mentioned on the copies served on the respondent nor was there anything to show it was so verified and affirmed before the said officer. In that case the name of the officer, who had administered oath to the petitioner or before whom the petitioner had verified the petition, was not mentioned on the copies served on the respondent nor was there anything to show it was so verified and affirmed before the said officer. In that background, the learned single Judge has held : “The copy of the election petition which is required to be served on the respondent has to be a true copy i.e., a copy which is substantially a reproduction of the original and if there is omission of vital nature in the copy as compared to the original election petition, it cannot be ignored and if there is such a omission, the copy of the petition served on the respondent cannot be a true copy of the original. If the copy of the election petition served on the respondent contains omission as regards the endorsement by the prescribed authority before whom the petition is verified, such an omission is considered as a vital omission and would entail the dismissal of the petition under Section 86(1)." 17. Reliance is also place on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Vinod Ramchandra Ghosalkar v. Sunil Dattatray Tatkare and others, 1997 (3) Bom CR 110. In the aforesaid authority one of the objections was that the copy supplied to the respondents did not contain the signature or name of the officer who had administered the oath to the petitioner. It was also urged in the aforesaid case that the true copy of the verification of the petition was not furnished to the respondents. In the background of the objection, the learned single Judge in paragraph 31 has held thus : "31. I, therefore, hold that in these cases, since the copy supplied to the respondent do not contain the signature or name of the Associate and the date put by him, the copy supplied is not a true copy within the meaning of Section 81 (3) of the Act, therefore, is a fatal defect which warrants the dismissal of the election petition for non-compliance of provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act." 18. Mr. Mr. Thali then places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajendra Singh v. Smt. Usha Rani and others, (1984) Supreme Court Cases 339, in which the Supreme Court has held that if the election petitioner files a number of copies, some of which may be correct and some of which are incorrect, it is his duty to see that the copy served on the respondent is a correct copy. The respondent is not obliged to wade through the entire record in order to find out which is the correct copy. If out of the copies filed, the respondent's copy is found to be an incorrect one, it amounts to non-compliance of Section 81(3) which is sufficient to entail a dismissal of the election petition at the behest under Section 86. 19. Mr. Coelho Pereira, the learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian and others, (2001) 8 SCC 358 . This was a case where the Supreme Court held that the mere omission, in the set of copies which were supplied to the respondents, regarding the 'endorsement made by the Oath Commissioner attesting the affidavit to have been sworn by the deponent before him, his signature and rubber stamp did not appear in the copy of the affidavit delivered to the respondents, would not ipso facto entail dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In the said case, the Supreme Court was of the view that the petitioner therein had a few days before the starting of the arguments, supplied fresh copies of the affidavit containing the verification as found in the original affidavit in its entirety and, therefore, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the defects pointed out in the petition being curable, had been cured. On behalf of the election petitioner, reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and others, (1999) 4 SCC 274 . In this case the copy of the affidavit that was served contained an endorsement that the affidavit had been duly affirmed, signed and verified before a Notary. Under the affirmation by Notary, the words, Sd. / - Notary were also written. In this case the copy of the affidavit that was served contained an endorsement that the affidavit had been duly affirmed, signed and verified before a Notary. Under the affirmation by Notary, the words, Sd. / - Notary were also written. What was missing, however, in the copy of the affidavit was the name and address of the Notary as well as the stamp and seal of the Notary before whom the affidavit had been so affirmed and who had attested the affidavit. The Supreme Court found that the copies of the election petition and the affidavit served on the returned candidate bore the signatures of the petitioner on every page and the original affidavit filed in support of the election petition had been properly signed, verified and affirmed by the election petitioner and attested by the Notary. Non-mention of the name of the Notary or the absence of the stamp and seal of the Notary in the otherwise true copy supplied by the election petitioner could not be construed to be an omission or variation of a vital nature and thus the defect, if at all it could be construed as a defect, was not a defect of any vital nature attracting the consequences of Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Reliance is then placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Prasad Sarma v. Mani Kumar Subba and others, JT 2002 (8) SC 517. In this case, the true copy of the affidavit served on the respondent by the election petitioner did not contain the attestation stamp of the Oath Commissioner. The original election petition, however, bore the signature of the Oath Commissioner. The Supreme Court, thus, came to the conclusion that once an averment was there, that affidavit is being sworn in support of the allegations of corrupt practices and that the petitioner had put his signature thereon prima facie fulfilment of the legal requirement is adequately reflected even in the absence of the name and seal of the Oath Commissioner in the true copy. Mere omission of the name and stamp of the Oath Commissioner would not be material. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that dismissal of the election petition on this count was not correct. 20. Mr. Mere omission of the name and stamp of the Oath Commissioner would not be material. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that dismissal of the election petition on this count was not correct. 20. Mr. Coelho Pereira, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the election petitioner, has submitted that the respondent No.1/returned candidate was subsequently served with two copies of the election petition, which are true copies of the original. He further submitted that the respondent No.1/returned candidate returned one copy and retained with him a copy, which was received by him from the Registry, and one copy, which was served through the bailiff. The learned senior counsel for the election petitioner then submitted that perusal of the deposition of RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar would show that her statement that the vakalatnama was filed on 2nd August, 2002 by Advocate V.P. Thali is incorrect. The vakalatnama Exhibit RW 4 was filed in the Registry on 6th September, 2002. The vakalatnama is also dated 4th August, 2002: Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel for the election petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/returned candidate was not armed with the vakalatnama when he accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.1l/returned candidate. He has further urged that RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar being the junior of Advocate V.P. Thali is deposing in favour of the respondent No.1/returned candidate and, therefore, her evidence that the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/returned candidate had received the copy of the election petition at Exhibit RW 1 cannot be accepted. It is also urged that the respondent No.1l/returned candidate ought to have examined the Assistant Registrar to prove that the copy at Exhibit RW 1 had been served on the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/returned candidate. 21. On a perusal of the copy of election petition at. Exhibit RW 1, it is seen that it is not signed by the election petitioner. After the prayer clause at internal page 13 of the petition above the word 'petitioner' there is no signature of the election petitioner. Similarly, on the next page, beneath the verification, there is no signature of the election petitioner above the word 'petitioner'. Thus, pages 1 to 14 of the copy at Exhibit RW 1, there is no signature of the election petitioner. Similarly, on the next page, beneath the verification, there is no signature of the election petitioner above the word 'petitioner'. Thus, pages 1 to 14 of the copy at Exhibit RW 1, there is no signature of the election petitioner. Thus, the copy at Exhibit RW 1, would indicate that the election petitioner had neither signed, verified the petition nor was it attested before any authority. There is no endorsement of attestation of the officer before whom the petition was signed. Similarly, there is absence of the signature of the Advocate, who had identified the election petitioner. An affidavit has been filed by the election petitioner and the copy of the Affidavit in Exhibit RW 1 does not show that the affidavit has been affirmed by the election petitioner. There is no signature of the election petitioner above the word "deponent". There is no signature of the Advocate, who has identified the election petitioner. There is an absence of the affirmation endorsement put by the authority, who has administered the oath including absence of signature and name of the authority. The Affidavit comprises of 3 pages. There is no signature of the election petitioner on any page, leave apart any endorsement of it being a true copy. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, the copy at Exhibit RW 1, which is supplied to the respondent No.1/returned candidate, is not a true copy of the election petition that is filed. The judgment of the Supreme Court, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the election petitioner, in my respectful opinion, in the facts of the present case, are, therefore, clearly distinguishable. 22. It is true that RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar in her evidence has stated incorrectly that the vakalatnama was filed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/returned candidate on 2nd August, 2002. The vakalatnama was, in fact, filed on 6th September, 2002. The vakalatnama is also dated 4th August, 2002. However, on the basis of this discrepancy, it cannot be said that the statement of RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar that she had accompanied the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/returned candidate to the Registry and had received the copy at Exhibit RW 1 is rendered doubtful. The copy at Exhibit RW 1 contains the signature of the election petitioner. However, on the basis of this discrepancy, it cannot be said that the statement of RW 1 Advocate Gandhali Pednekar that she had accompanied the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/returned candidate to the Registry and had received the copy at Exhibit RW 1 is rendered doubtful. The copy at Exhibit RW 1 contains the signature of the election petitioner. It would be far fetched either to urge or to presume that this is a copy which is prepared by the respondent No.1l/returned candidate in order to secure dismissal of the election petition. Undoubtedly the respondent No.1/returned candidate was subsequently supplied with true copy of the election petition. But, that does not cure the defect in supplying to the respondent No.1/returned candidate a copy of the petition, which is not a true copy of the election petition. Therefore, according to me, there is a breach of Section 81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act inasmuch as the copy at Exhibit RW 1 supplied to the respondent No.1l/returned candidate was not a true copy of the election petition. (B) The second objection is in respect of the fact that the election petition when presented was not accompanied with as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/returned candidate has drawn my attention to the endorsement made by the Additional Registrar of this Court, dated 16th July, 2002, at Exhibit 1, which is the presentation form. The endorsement on Exhibit 1 reads as under : "Presented today i.e., Tuesday, the 16th July, 2002 at 2.30 p.m. by Jose Philips Domingo D'Souza personally, accompanied by Adv. Mr. Amrut Kansar. S.O. Jad. to process on the provisions of the Act and the Rules." The roznama, dated 16th July, 2002 signed by the Additional Registrar reads as under : "ELECTION PETITION NO.2 OF 2002 Petition accompanied by Presentation form presented in person by Jose Philip Domingo D'Souza who is accompanied by his counsel advocate Amrut Kansar. (Exh. 1) Index presented alongwith the petition (Exh. 2) List of documents (Exh. 3). Affidavit of the petitioner Mr. Jose Philip Domingo D'Souza (Exh. 4). Memo of Address (Exh. 5). Vakalatnama of Advocate Amrut Kansar (Exh. 6). Petitioner deposited security deposit of Rs. 2000/ - as per receipt No.3403 dated 16.7.2002. Office to examine the petition and process it further. Sd/-. Addl. Registrar." 23. 2) List of documents (Exh. 3). Affidavit of the petitioner Mr. Jose Philip Domingo D'Souza (Exh. 4). Memo of Address (Exh. 5). Vakalatnama of Advocate Amrut Kansar (Exh. 6). Petitioner deposited security deposit of Rs. 2000/ - as per receipt No.3403 dated 16.7.2002. Office to examine the petition and process it further. Sd/-. Addl. Registrar." 23. The Examination 'Form, Exhibit RW 7, which is dated 18th July, 2002, shows at Query No.3 that there are requisite number of copies for service to the respondents. The petition was, admittedly, filed on 16th July, 2002, which was the last day of the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the election petition under the Representation of the People Act. The endorsement of the Additional Registrar does not disclose that when the election petition was filed it was accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition. The Order Sheet of the Additional Registrar, dated 16th July, 2002 also does not indicate that the election petition was accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents. The office endorsement shows that the second set of copies to be served by registered post acknowledgment due was supplied by the Advocate for the election petition on 12th August, 2002. 24. Relying on the aforesaid Exhibits, it is urged by Mr. Thali, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/returned candidate, that these documents, prima facie, show that the election petitioner when presenting the petition did not file the requisite number of copies as there are respondents. He has urged that the petition was filed on the last day of the limitation period and, though the Examination Form signed by the Section Officer (Judicial), dated 18th July, 2002, shows that the petition was accompanied by requisite number of copies, the fact remains that there is nothing of record to show that the petition when filed was accompanied by requisite number of copies. He, therefore, submitted that the election petitioner ought to have, in the face of these documents, examined the Additional Registrar of this Court to prove that the petition was accompanied by the requisite number of copies when it was presented to the Registry on 16th July, 2002. According to Mr. Thali, the supply of the additional copies subsequently, particularly after the expiry of the period of limitation cannot cure the defect in the present petition. 25. Mr. According to Mr. Thali, the supply of the additional copies subsequently, particularly after the expiry of the period of limitation cannot cure the defect in the present petition. 25. Mr. Coelho Pereira, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the election petitioner, has relied on the decision of the Orissa High Court in Ratnakar Mohanty v. Jugal Kishore Patnaik, AIR 1976 Orissa 85. In the aforesaid authority it was held that where an election petition was resisted on the ground of non-compliance of Section 81 in that an attested copy was not filed alongwith the petition, on the basis of the certificate as endorsed on the petition on its presentation, it was seen that there was no defect. The respondent in support of that objection had not examined the Registrar, the Stamp Reporter and the peon on the presumption that the attested copy was filed with the original election petition was not rebutted. The facts of the reported case can be distinguished. The Office Note in the reported decision read that summons for written statement and also copy of election petition field. The Stamp Reporter had also copy of election petition filed. The Stamp Reporter had also noted that there was no defect in the filing of the petition. On the basis of this, therefore, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the election petition was in conformity with the requirements of law. In other words an attested copy accompanied the original petition. 26. Reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel for the election petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore Patnaik v. Ratnakar Mohanty, AIR 1976 SC 2130 . The Supreme Court in paragraph 8, in response to answering an objection regarding non-filing of requisite number of copies for the respondent, has held that there was an endorsement, dated April 15, 1974 made by an officer of the High Court which shows that the copy of the election petition had been filed. The Supreme Court further held that there was no cogent reason as to why an officer of the High Court should make a false endorsement on the petition, if, in fact, no such copy was filed. The facts of the reported judgment, therefore, can be clearly distinguished from the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court further held that there was no cogent reason as to why an officer of the High Court should make a false endorsement on the petition, if, in fact, no such copy was filed. The facts of the reported judgment, therefore, can be clearly distinguished from the facts of the present case. Thus, there is breach of Section 81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act in not supplying as many copies as there are respondents. This issue is, therefore, answered in the affirmative in favour of the respondent No.1/returned candidate. (C) The election petitioner states that there is non-compliance of Sections 83(l)(c) and 83(2) of the Representation of the People Act. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/returned candidate has very fairly stated that the petition and the documents, have been properly verified. So this, is, therefore, not pressed by the respondent No.1/returned candidate. (D) Mr. Thali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/returned candidate, has urged that the affidavit sworn by the election petitioner is defective. The election petitioner has filed an application in this Court for permission to file a consent affidavit. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, hearing of the said application had been deferred till the disposal of the present petition. Even otherwise, Mr. Coelho Pereira, the learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner, has invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda and others, (1999) 2 SCC 217 . The Supreme Court has held that defect in the verification of the election petition or the affidavit accompanying the election petition is curable and is not fatal. In view of this, there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/returned candidate that the election petition be dismissed as the affidavit filed in support of the election petition is defective. (E) In respect of Section 83(1)(c). Mr. Thali, the learned counsel appealing on behalf of the respondent No.1/returned candidate has drawn my attention to Exhibit F, the document filed by the election petitioner alongwith the petition. This document forms an integral part of the petition and is referred to in paragraph 11 of the petition. Paragraph 11 of the petition, in which this document Exhibit F is referred, reads as under : “11. This document forms an integral part of the petition and is referred to in paragraph 11 of the petition. Paragraph 11 of the petition, in which this document Exhibit F is referred, reads as under : “11. The petitioner states that the Returning Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer had the poll on 13.5.2002 and the counting of votes on 1.6.2002 and declared the respondent No.1 duly elected to fill the seat. A copy of return of election dated 1.6.2002 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit F." In the verification it is stated that the petitioner solemnly affirms and verifies that the statement in paragraph 1...11... are true to his personal knowledge. The affidavit accompanying the election petition was sworn on 15th July, 2002 and the petition came to be filed on 16th July, 2002. The document, Exhibit F, is a xerox copy of the certified copy, which was received by the election petitioner. The stamp on the copy indicates that the election petitioner had applied for the copy on 11th July, 2002 and the copy was ready for delivery on 16th July, 2002 and the copy was, in fact, delivered on 16th July, 2002. Therefore, according to Mr. Thali, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/returned candidate, the document at Exhibit F was never in the possession of the election petitioner when the petition was signed and verified and the affidavit affirmed. The verification, therefore, is defective, which goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, the document which forms an integral part of the petition which is so verified by the petitioner, but was never in the possession of the petitioner, the petition cannot be said to be properly verified. Thus, if the petitioner refers to a document which forms an integral part of the petition, but that document was not in possession of the petitioner, the petition cannot be said to be a petition within the meaning of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Therefore, according to Mr. Thali, the petition deserves to be dismissed on this count. The petitioner has not stepped into the witness box to explain this discrepancy. Therefore, according to Mr. Thali, the petition deserves to be dismissed on this count. The petitioner has not stepped into the witness box to explain this discrepancy. The petitioner in his reply at Exhibit 23 in paragraph 21 has admitted that the petitioner had applied for the certified copy on 11th July, 2002 and the petitioner was given the date as 15th July, 2002 for taking delivery of the copy. The petitioner has further admitted that the copy was delivered to the petitioner on 16th July, 2002. The petitioner has also admitted that the petitioner signed, verified and the affidavit was sworn supporting the petition on 15th July, 2002. The petitioner has also admitted that he had signed and verified the petition on 15th July, 2002 and then proceeded to Vasco to collect the copy of the document at Exhibit F. Thus, the petitioner has admitted that when he signed and verified the petition, the document at Exhibit F was not in the possession of the petitioner. In these circumstances, therefore the defect in the verification goes to the root of the matter and it cannot be said that the petition presented is an election petition within the meaning of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951. This issue is, therefore, answered in the affirmative. The petition is liable to be rejected on this count alone. 27. As to Issue No.3, According to the respondent No.1/returned candidate, the petition does not contain a concise statement of the material facts, on which the election petitioner relies and also that the petition does not disclose any cause of action. 28. Mr. Thali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/returned candidate has urged before me that none of the grounds taken in support of the charge of corrupt practices spell out any corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the respondent No.1/returned candidate. He, therefore, states that the petition does not disclose any cause of action. The election petition has been filed on the ground of corrupt practices as well as on the ground that the respondent No.1/returned candidate, being the Chairman of the Goa State Schedule Caste and other Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd., was holding an office of profit in Goa. The election petition has been filed on the ground of corrupt practices as well as on the ground that the respondent No.1/returned candidate, being the Chairman of the Goa State Schedule Caste and other Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd., was holding an office of profit in Goa. Whether the respondent No.1/returned candidate was holding the office of profit, at the time when he submitted his nomination form and when he was elected, is a matter which will have to be adjudicated after the parties lead their evidence. Suffice it to say that, at this stage, the petition discloses a cause of action and, as such, it cannot be held that the petition does not disclose any cause of action entailing dismissal of the election petition. This issue, therefore, is answered in the negative. 29. In view of the discussion on Issue No.2(A), (B) and (E), the petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Bill of costs be drawn up accordingly. Registry to communicate the judgment as per the provisions of Section 103 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Petition dismissed