ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. The petitioner is returned candidate for post of Sapranch of Gram Panchayat Kundpan, Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj. Respondent No.1 herein filed the election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The present petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the Rules of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 1995') have not been complied with while filing the election petition. That application was rejected finding no merit, against which, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed. 2. Mr.Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1995 has not been complied with, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the election petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. Ms Neha Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would submit that in the election petition the election petitioner has signed each page of the election petition though the word "attested" is missing, but that is substantial compliance and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The Constitution Bench judgment, in the matter of Dr. Anup Singh v. (1) Abdul Ghani and others (2) Shri Lachman Singh MLA AIR 1965 SC 815 , has considered precisely the same issue where the copies of the election petition were signed by the election petitioner but the words "true copy" were not mentioned over the signature. In that case, under the provision of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Supreme Court considered the pari materia provisions of Section 90(3) and 81(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to hold that the election petitioner having signed on every page of the copy is deemed to have complied with the mandatory provisions even if the words "true copy" are not written above the signature. It is held therein that by putting signature on every page of the copy, the election petitioner has owned responsibility of the contents of the election petition and thus, there is substantial compliance of mandatory provisions. 6. In the matter of Dr. It is held therein that by putting signature on every page of the copy, the election petitioner has owned responsibility of the contents of the election petition and thus, there is substantial compliance of mandatory provisions. 6. In the matter of Dr. Omprakash Soni v. Ashok Kumar Bhargava and others AIR 1996 M.P. 43 , the M.P. High Court was faced with a situation where the copy of the election petition was not signed by the election petitioner but the same was attested by the lawyer. Thus, there was non compliance of the mandatory provision and in the said fact situation, it was held that the election petition suffers from fatal defects. 7. In the present case, election petition was filed by respondent No.1 before the Specified Officer (SDO Revenue) on 24.2.2015. The original election petition filed by the election petitioner would show that he has signed on each page of the election petition, but the word "true copy" are not written above his signature and also verified the election petition under his own signature. A careful perusal would show that in paragraph 7 he has stated that he is filing certified true copy of relevant documents. 8. The present petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the election petition stating inter-alia that the copy of the election petition is not duly attested copy, therefore, election petition is liable to be rejected. He neither filed the copy of election petition served to him nor filed any affidavit in support of his application for rejection of the election petition and also not raised any objection that document annexed along with the election petition is not duly attested copy and even did not file the copy of document served to him along with election petition. The relevant paragraph of application states as under:- ^^3 ;g fd ;kfpdkdrkZ N0x0ia0jk0 vf/kfu;e 1993 ds varxrZ /kkjk 122 ds varxZr pquko ;kfpdk lacaf/kr izko/kku cuk;s x;s gS ftlesa fd pquko ;kfpdk ds izLrqrhdj.k ,oa fopkj.k djus gsrq 'kklu ds dqN ewyHkwr fu;e cuk;s gSA ftls fd CHHATTISGARH PANCHAYAT RAJ ADHINIYAM ELECTION PETITION CORRUPT PRACTICE AND DISQUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP) RULES 1995 ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gS mijksDr vf/kfu;e ds :Yl 8 ds vuqlkj ;kfpdk tks fd ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk vuqizekf.kr ugha fd;k x;k gS bl izdkj fu;e 3 mi fu;e 2 dk mYy?kau gS ftl dkj.k ls izLrqr fuokZpu ;kfpdk =qfViq.kZ gksus ds dkj.k izpyu ;ksX; ugh gSA 4- ;g fd izLrqr pquko ;kfpdk vkKkid fu;eksa dk ikyu u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS D;ksafd ;kfpdkdrkZ us pquko ;kfpdk dh izfr dh vuqizekf.kr fu;ekuqlkj ugha fd;k gS ftlls ;g irk py lds fd og lR;izekf.kr izfrfyfi gSA** 9. A perusal of the aforesaid application would clearly show that the objection taken by the petitioner herein/returned candidate was half-hearted objection. Firstly, he did not file the copy of the election petition served to him to demonstrate that copy of the election petition served to him was not duly attested copy as required by the rules and even did not care to file affidavit in support of his application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The original election petition filed by the election petitioner/respondent No.1 would show that he has signed on each page of the election petition, but has omitted to mention "attested copy" above his signature but that would not be fatal to the election petition as held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Anup Singh (supra), and as such, election petition cannot be dismissed for want of mentioning the word "attested copy" above the signature of the election petitioner. 10. So far as the non-attestation of the document annexed with the election petition, the returned candidate was required to plead and establish that such document forms an integral part of the election petition containing material facts. 10. So far as the non-attestation of the document annexed with the election petition, the returned candidate was required to plead and establish that such document forms an integral part of the election petition containing material facts. In the present case, application filed by respondent No.1 is blissfully silent in this regard, no such specific plea has been taken that document filed and served to him forms an integral part of the election petition and copy served to him is not duly attested copy and even the copy of the document served to him has not been filed before the Specified Officer and as such, it cannot be held that the Specified Officer is unjustified in rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC by the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.