ORDER : Sanjay Yadav, J. Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 25-6-2015; whereby an election petition filed by the petitioner under section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 against the election of respondent No. 4 as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Gouri (35), Janpad Panchayat, Hanumana, District Rewa, has been dismissed on the preliminary issue as to non-compliance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she along with respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 contested the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gouri. The polling was on 13-1-2015 and the results were declared on 17-1-2015. Petitioner lost to respondent No. 4 by five votes. Petitioner lodged complaint as to the corrupt practise adopted in winning the election. As no heed was paid on the complaint, petitioner filed an election petition under section 122 of Adhiniyam 1993 on 13-2-2015 by impleading necessary parties, along with 11 extra copies duly attested accompanied with the security amount of Rs. 1,000/-through challan. It is contended that as there was compliance of Rules 3, 4 and 7 of the Rules, 1995 the specified officer, admitted the petition and issued notice on 13-2-2015 and the matter was posted on 27-2-2015. On 27-2-2015, respondent No. 3 appeared before the Tribunal; whereas respondent No. 4 appeared on 5-3-2015 whereon he took time to file reply. Preliminary objection as to non-compliance of the stipulation under Rule 3(2) of 1995 Rules were filed on 26-3-2015. The Specified Officer vide impugned order dismissed the election petition. It is contended that the Specified Officer glossed over the material documentary evidence on record which could establish that the petitioner complied with the stipulations contained in Rules 3, 4 and 7 of the Rules, 1995. 3. Respondent No. 4 supports the order rejecting the election petition. 4. The Specified Officer vide impugned order dismissed the election petition. It is contended that the Specified Officer glossed over the material documentary evidence on record which could establish that the petitioner complied with the stipulations contained in Rules 3, 4 and 7 of the Rules, 1995. 3. Respondent No. 4 supports the order rejecting the election petition. 4. Rule 3 of 1995 Rules with which we are concerned with, the non-compliance whereof would entail the election petition not maintainable under Rule 8, require two fold compliance, firstly, that the election petition shall be presented to the specified officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition [Rule 3(1)] and secondly, that 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 [(Rule 3(2)]. 5. Precise objection raised by respondent No. 4 by filing an application on 26-3-2015 was in respect of non compliance of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1995. It was stated in paragraph 2 of the application that: ^^2 & ;g fd ;kfpdk drkZ us fofgr fu;e 3¼2½ ds rgr izR;sd fuokZpu vthZ ds lkFk mldh mruh gh izfr;ka layXu gksxh ftrus izR;FkhZ ml vthZ esa of.kZr gS vkSj vthZnkj izR;sd ,slh izfr;ka vius gLrk{kj ls vuqizekf.kr djsxk fd og vthZ dh lgh izfr gS bl lkjcku fu;e dk vuqikyu u djrs gq, ;kfpdk ds lkFk xSj;kfpdk dz- 1 rk 11 dks iznk; gsrq ;kfpdk dh 11 izfr vius gLrk{kj ls vuqizekf.kr djds lR;kfir izfr E;kn ds vanj ;kfpdk esa layXu ugha dh xbZ gS vkSj u rks U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k gS blfy, lkjcku] fu;e dk vuqikyu ugh gqvk gSaA** 6. Though one more ground was raised by the respondent No. 4 that affidavit in support of the election petition under Order 6, Rule 15 (4), Civil Procedure Code; however, the Specified Officer did not dwell on the same, nor rejected the petition for the said non-compliance and the respondent No. 4 having not carried further by respondent No. 4, said aspect in not adverted to and the matter is confined to the issue pertaining to compliance of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1995. 7. 7. The objection raised on behalf of the respondent No. 4 as to non-compliance of Rule 3(2) found favour with the specified officer who held : ^^xSj;kfpdkdrkZ dz- 1 ds }kjk izpyu'khyrk vkosnu i= ij izLrqr ekSf[kd rdZ ,oa ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd }kjk izpyu'khyrk ds vkosnu i= ij izLrqr fyf[kr rdZ dk voyksdu ,oa ifj'khyu fd,s tkus ds mijkar izLrqr ;kfpdk ,oa ;kfpdk ds lkFk izLrqr nLrkostksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k xSj ;kfpdkdrkZ dz- 1 ds }kjk izLrqr izpyu'khyrk ds vkosnu i= esa ftu rF;ksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd ;kfpdk drkZ ds }kjk izLrqr ;kfpdk dh Nk;kizfr esa ;kfpdkdrkZ ds gLrk{kj;qDr vuqizekf.kr izfr le; ds vUnj ugh izLrqr fd;s tkus dh iqf"V izekf.kr gksus dh n'kk es rFkk ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk izpyu'khyrk ds vkosnu i= esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa dk izekf.kr ugha fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa mRrjoknh dz- 1 ds }kjk izLrqr izpyu'khyrk dk vkosnu i= ekU; fd;k tkdj ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ;kfpdk izpyu'khy ugh gksus ls izFke n`";k fujLr dh tkrh gSA** 8. Since the petitioner has questioned the finding being perverse, records from the specified officer were summoned through office of learned Advocate General. The records are produced. However, before adverting to records various decisions rendered by the High Court as to scope of Rule 3 of Rules, 1995 may be taken note of. 9. That, the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995 are mandatory and the defects cannot be cured after the prescribed limitation period has expired. In Dr. Omprakash Soni v. Ashok Kumar Bhargava and others, 1996 MPU Online 2 : AIR 1996 M.P. 43 it is held : "17. As such in view of the fact that there is a direct decision of the Supreme Court dealing with the question of attestation, I respectfully follow the same and conclude that failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 3(2) which are pari materia with section 81(3) of the 1951 Act would lead to summary dismissal of the election petition." 10. However, in case of substantial compliance of the Rule 3, it is held to be maintainable. In Ku. Parwati Bai Thakur v. State of M. P. and others, 2007 MPU Online 11 : 2007(3) MPHT 63 , it is held : "6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the petition has no merit. However, in case of substantial compliance of the Rule 3, it is held to be maintainable. In Ku. Parwati Bai Thakur v. State of M. P. and others, 2007 MPU Online 11 : 2007(3) MPHT 63 , it is held : "6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the petition has no merit. A perusal of the copy of the election petition (Annexure P-1) which was accompanied with the election petition and was supplied to the petitioner, reveals that on each and every page the third respondent has put her signature. In the circumstances, mere non-mention of 'true copy' would not be sufficient to hold that the Rule 3(2) of the Rules has not been complied with. In the case of Subba Rao v. Member, Election Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1027 the Supreme Court held that as the signature in original was there in the copy, the presence of such original signature in the copy 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 copies. The Supreme Court considering the matter under sections 81(3) and 90 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, further held that there was substantial compliance of section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act and the petition could not be dismissed under section 90(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The facts of this case shall apply with full force to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, it can be safely held that there is substantial compliance of Rule 3(2) of the Rules." In Mrs. Indira Singh v. Mrs. Anjana Sharma and others, 2006 MPLJ Online 72 : 2006(4) MPHT 152 , it has been observed : "9. The Apex Court in Chandrakant Uttam, (2005) 2 SCC 188 held that the substantial compliance of the aforesaid provision is enough where the defects in copies were curable or non-fatal in nature, the election petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold for the non-compliance of the provision. The Apex Court in Chandrakant Uttam, (2005) 2 SCC 188 held that the substantial compliance of the aforesaid provision is enough where the defects in copies were curable or non-fatal in nature, the election petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold for the non-compliance of the provision. Only in case where there is absence of signature of election petition (after prayer and verification) then it is fatal and the election petition may be dismissed but when the election petitioner signed each and every page of the copies of the election petition supplied to the respondents, the defect will not be material, vital or fatal warranting dismissal of election petition at the preliminary stage. The Apex Court in Chandrakant Uttam (supra), held thus : 27. In view of our discussion made above and in the absence of any material to show that true copies of the election petitions were also not filed at the presentation of election petitions, we are unable to hold that there was non-compliance of section 81(3) of the Act inasmuch as the copies alleged to have been supplied to the returned candidate were not true copies of the petitions. 28. Even if the copies of the election petitions which were alleged to have been served on the respondent No. 1 could be accepted and relied upon then also, in our view, the High Court had committed an error in holding that the election petitions must be rejected for non-compliance of section 81(3) of the Act on the ground that "true copies" of the election petitions were not served upon the respondent No. 1. As noted herein earlier, the successful candidates/respondent No. 1 in both the election petitions sought rejection of the election petitions inter alia on the following grounds: (1) Internal Page 10 of Exhibit R.W. l, which is the copy of the election petition after the prayer clause and verification there is no signature of the election petitioner. (2) The stamp in respect of the swearing of the affidavit was also absent on the copy of the election petition. (3) The affidavit accompanying the petition also does not bear the signature of the election petitioners. (2) The stamp in respect of the swearing of the affidavit was also absent on the copy of the election petition. (3) The affidavit accompanying the petition also does not bear the signature of the election petitioners. In view of the recent pronouncement in Chandrakant Uttam (supra), the defect to write 'true copies' in the copies supplied to the respondents, petitioner herein will not be either vital or fatal in nature so as to warrant dismissal of the petition at the threshold." In Natthulal v. Shakuntalabai and another, 2011(2) M.P.L.J. 424 , it is held: "14. So far as the supply of another copy of memorandum of election petition which was given to respondent No. 1 before Election Tribunal on 13-3-2010 is concerned, according to me it was not required to be signed and verified by the election petitioner. In this context much has been said by the Division Bench of this Court in Lata Patle (supra). Hence, I have no scintilla of doubt in order to hold that the extra copy which was supplied to the returned candidate/respondent No. 1 before Election Tribunal on the date of hearing was not required to be verified and signed by the election petitioner." In Shakuntalabai v. Nathulal and another, 2011(3) M.P.L.J. 119 , it is observed: "7. It is, therefore, apparent from the order sheets that the election petition filed by the respondent/petitioner on 18-2-2010 was accepted by the authority in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Panchayat Rules and thereafter notice on the said election petition was issued to the appellant. It is also clear and has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on subsequent issuance of notice on 15-3-2010 it was served upon the appellant and accordingly he entered appearance on 23-3-2010. However, it has nowhere been stated by the appellant that the copy served upon the appellant along with the notice was not signed or attested or that a copy of the petition was not attached to the notice while a perusal of the order sheet dated 23-3-2010 indicates that the appellant appeared and was given an additional copy. However, it has nowhere been stated by the appellant that the copy served upon the appellant along with the notice was not signed or attested or that a copy of the petition was not attached to the notice while a perusal of the order sheet dated 23-3-2010 indicates that the appellant appeared and was given an additional copy. The appellant did not take any objection either on 23-3-2010, 6-4-2010 or on 13-4-2010 to the effect that the notice served on him was without copies of the election petition or that the copy served along with the notice on 19-4-2010 to the effect that the copy supplied to him on his request did not contain attestation and signature. 8. The learned Single Judge, after taking careful note of the aforesaid order sheets has recorded a finding that there is nothing on record to establish that a signed and attested copy of the election petition was not sent to the appellant along with the notice. The learned Single Judge has also stated, and in our considered opinion rightly so, that in case an unsigned and unattested copies of the election petition was served upon the appellant along with the notice it should have been filed by the appellant before the authority to establish this fact and as the best evidence which was available to the appellant was not produced by him an adverse inference has rightly been drawn against him. The learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding to the effect that the additional copy, i.e., an extra copy which was given to the counsel for the appellant during the proceedings on 23-2-2010 need not be signed and attested by the election petitioner as that is not the requirement of Rule 3 of the Panchayat Rules which only provides signing and attestation of copies filed along with the election petition. We find no legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge or the proposition of law laid down therein warranting interference in this appeal." 11. Thus, the provisions contained in Rule 3 has been held to be mandatory, however, in case of substantial compliance, minor deviancy which does not materially affect the mandatory provision are found to be pardonable as held in Natthulal v. Shakuntalabai and another (supra) and Shakuntalabai v. Nathulal and another (supra). 12. Thus, the provisions contained in Rule 3 has been held to be mandatory, however, in case of substantial compliance, minor deviancy which does not materially affect the mandatory provision are found to be pardonable as held in Natthulal v. Shakuntalabai and another (supra) and Shakuntalabai v. Nathulal and another (supra). 12. Having noted the scope of Rule 3 of 1995 the facts on record are adverted at. 13. Order sheet dated 18-12-2015 recorded by the Specified Officer reveals the presentation of election petition by the petitioner who was personally present. The order sheet records of presentation of election petition supported by an affidavit, accompanying the challan dated 12-2-2014 of Rs. 1000/-. The order further records, the admission of election petition for hearing Election Petition on record reveals that 10 candidates who contested the election are made respondent and returning officer is impleaded as respondent No. 3. Each page of election petition is duly signed by the petitioner. And besides verification, an affidavit is also filed. The second copy which is replica of first copy is also filed along with original election petition. Certified copy of election notification dated 18-1-2015, election certificate dated 17-1-2015, statement under Rule 81(1) of Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Tabulation Sheet dated 17-1-2015 and the list of contesting candidates dated 11-1-2015 were filed along with list of documents with the election petition. That, 16 more documents are on record filed by the petitioner along with petition on 13-12-2015. That, process fee is paid on 13-2-2015 with 11 copies of the election petition for its service on 11 respondents. It is further borne out from record that the respondent No. 4 was served with the notice issued on 13-2-2015 by the process server Chhedilal. There is no endorsement thereover by respondent No. 4 of not receiving the copy of election petition and the document. Rather none of the noticees, who are served with the notice had complained of non-receiving of the copy of the election petition and the documents. 14. The order sheet dated 27-2-2015 reveals that the Specified Officer proceeded ex parte against respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 because despite service of notice they did not appear. Rather none of the noticees, who are served with the notice had complained of non-receiving of the copy of the election petition and the documents. 14. The order sheet dated 27-2-2015 reveals that the Specified Officer proceeded ex parte against respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 because despite service of notice they did not appear. As to present respondent No. 4 who is impleaded as respondent No. 1 appeared on 27-2-2015 and was given the copy of petition for filing reply (order sheet records : ^^xSj ;kfpdk dz- 1 o 5 mifLFkr ;kfpdk dh izfr okLrs tokc nh xbZA** Respondent No. 4 while appearing on 27-2-2015 did not complain of not receiving the copy of petition with notice. And merely because she was given a copy for filing reply it cannot be presumed that the petitioner had not filed copies along with Election Petition. 15. Apparently, there is no material on record to substantiate the findings arrived at by the Specified Officer as to non-compliance of the stipulations contained under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1995. It appears from the impugned order and more particularly the findings ^Nk;kizfr esa ;kfpdkdrkZ ds gLrk{kj;qDr vuqizekf.kr izfr le; ds vUnj ugha izLrqr fd;s tkus dh iqf"V izekf.kr gksus dh n'kk esa* the Specified Officer is carried away by order dated 27-2-2015 whereon the copy of petition was directed to be given to the respondent No. 4 for reply. The order dated 27-2-2015 does not presuppose non filing of copies which as evident from the process form were accompanied with it. The Specified Officer has thus committed grave error in glossing over these vital facts. 16. Even otherwise it is in compliance of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1995 which provides that the specified officer shall as soon as may be, cause a copy of petition be served on each respondent, the Specified Officer directed the serving of copy on 27-2-2015. 17. In Lata Patle v. Smt. Kamlesh Gautam, 2008(1) M.P.L.J. 388 it is observed : "17. Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a comparison of the original election petition with Annexure B2-C would make it clear that Annexure B2-C is not photocopy of the original election petition. He submits that Annexure B2-C was later on concocted to suit the case and cause of the election petitioner. Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a comparison of the original election petition with Annexure B2-C would make it clear that Annexure B2-C is not photocopy of the original election petition. He submits that Annexure B2-C was later on concocted to suit the case and cause of the election petitioner. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is without any foundation. Smt. Lata Patle the election petitioner never stated before the Court the Ex.B2-C was true photo copy of the election petition which was filed in the Court. She had stated that a true photo copy of Ex.B2-C was supplied by the election petitioner to the present respondent. Supply of the copy to the respondent is to be found in Rule 9. Rule 9 simply says that the specified officer shall, as soon as may be, cause a copy of petition to be served on each respondent. Rule 9 does nowhere say that the copy required to be verified under Rule 3 is only to be served upon the respondent. If we take such a strict view of Rule 9 then the objection raised by the respondent must fail. However, a juxtapose reading of Rule 9 with Rule 3 we must observe that the copies submitted under Rule 3(2) must only be supplied to the party/respondent after they put in their appearance in the Court. In the present matter if along with the summons dated 26-2-2005 the verified copy was sent for service upon the respondents and later on assuming an ordinary copy was served upon the present respondent there would be no violation of Rule 3 because the necessary and required copies were once supplied along with the election petition." 18. Taking any view of the matter, since the findings arrived at by the Specified Officer are contrary to the facts on record and being perverse are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 19. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. Election Petition filed by the petitioner is restored. Specified Officer is directed to make endeavour to decide the same within three months. Records be handed over to learned Government Advocate under acknowledgment. 20. Petition is allowed to the extent above.