JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions have been filed by petitioner Ramjilal, who is a winning candidate and whose election was challenged by respondent No. 1 Ramjilal. 2. Counsel for petitioner has argued that learned Election Tribunal (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dausa) has committed an error by rejecting application of petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Order 6, Rule 15 of Civil Procedure Code. Respondent Ramjilal did not disclose any cause of action inasmuch verification is defective because in para No. 9 no proper verification was given by the respondent. 3. Learned counsel submitted that there was no reason why learned Court below held that the defect in verification was curable and was not fatal to maintainability of petition. Besides that, learned counsel submitted that learned court below ought to have dismissed election petition because petitioner was not supplied documents enclosed with election petition. 4. It is further argued that even when the order was passed by learned Court below on the application under Order 7, Rule 11 on 16-7-2010, it could not have delayed in passing the order on application under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code allowing amendment by more than four months, which order was eventually passed on 30-11-2010. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner cited judgment of this Court in Mohammad Yusuf and another v. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat " RLR 1995 (1) 223 : ( AIR 1995 Rajasthan 239). 6. Learned counsel for respondent opposed writ petition and submitted that the respondent opposed the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 and Order 6, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, but simultaneously he also filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code; in that application as well as in reply to the application filed by petitioner, the respondent admitted mistake and stated that in verification of election petition, para 8 was typed instead of para 9 which was an inadvertent mistake. The defect is curable and non-supply of document cannot be a reason for rejection of election petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The defect is curable and non-supply of document cannot be a reason for rejection of election petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. It would have been appropriate if the Court decided the application filed by petitioner as well as application of respondent simultaneously but nevertheless delay in deciding the application of the respondent cannot be a reason to hold that the order is bad in law. 9. Supreme Court in Regu Mahesh v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev and another " (2004) 1 SCC 46 : ( AIR 2004 SC 38 ) while dealing with a matter arising out of election petition under Representation of the People Act, 1951 that requirement under Section 83(1)(c) of the Act, 1951 of verification of petition in the manner laid down in Order 6 Rule 15 Civil Procedure Code shall have to be adhered to but the defect in verification, if any, on account of non- compliance therewith, is never incurable. The Supreme Court judgment is directly on the question of defect in verification and therein their Lordships have held that this defect in verification is curable and if despite being required by the Court the plaintiff does not cure the defect then the consequence may be dismissal of petition. 10. In present case, the application filed by respondent for amendment in election petition was allowed after the order was passed rejecting petitioner's application Order 7, Rule 11 read with Order 6, Rule 15. On the question non-supply of document also I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court below. However, if the petitioner points out any defect that mere non-supply of document by respondent may not be a reason for holding election petition with reference to Order 7, Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code. 11. I do not, therefore, find any merit in any of these petitions and same are dismissed. 12. If any documents remain unfurnished, petitioner may now point the same, which the respondent shall furnish to petitioner on the next date of hearing before the Court below and the plaintiff shall file reply to election petition within one month from the date of supply of such document.Petitions dismissed. *******