ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL): Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 02.01.2021 requesting that the petitioner may be permitted to comply with the office objections and also to comply the provisions of Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘R.P.Act’ for short) and Rule 94(A) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, as required under the Rule and to meet the ends of justice. This election petition was filed on 18.12.2020 with two prayers, as follows: “(a) Declare that the declaration of the election of the Respondent as contained in Annexure-E declaring the Respondent as Returning candidate from 136, SIRA Assembly Constituency, Tumkur as void as per Section 100(b) & (d)(i), (iii), (iv) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; (b) Declare the Petitioner as Returned candidate in respect of 136, SIRA Assembly Constituency, Tumkur as per Section 84 AND 101(A) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.” Office raised several objections. 19 objections were raised, to be precise. Thereafter, the instant memo dated 02.01.2021 was filed and the matter came up before this court for the first time on 11.01.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this court to the memo and sought for consideration of the memo. However, this court directed that the memo shall be considered after other objections were complied with. On 04.06.2021, when the matter came up before this court, learned counsel pressed for an order on the memo dated 02.01.2021. Learned counsel submits that in terms of the High Court of Karnataka Election Petition Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short), more particularly as per Rule 9, a duty is cast upon the office of the High Court to raise objections if there is non-conformity of any of the requirements of law and the Rules in the election petition. Learned counsel submits that Rules laid down procedure for compliance of the office objections and time shall be granted for compliance of office objections. Learned counsel would further contend that since there was non-compliance of Section 82(a) inasmuch as non-joinder of all the contesting candidates although a declaration was sought at prayer No.(b) to declare the petitioner as returned candidate in respect of 136, Sira Assembly Constituency, Tumkur, as per Section 84 and Section 101(A) of the R.P.Act, the office was bound to raise such an objection. Learned counsel would further submit that since the office was duty bound to raise such objections, a direction is sought that the office be directed to raise such objections and in terms of the Rules, grant an opportunity to the petitioner to comply with the office objections within three days or within such further time, as provided under the Rules. In this regard, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saritha S.Nair Vs Hibi Eden reported in AIR 2021 SC 483 , to contend that an opportunity is required to be given by this court to cure the defects. Similarly, it is submitted that in the case of Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vs Kommuri Pratap Reddy and Others reported in (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 788, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the courts should avoid hyper-technical approach while dealing with a electoral disputes. It is submitted that it has been held in that case that, election rules do not by themselves cause any prejudice to the successful candidate so long as the deficiency is cured by the election petitioner by filing a proper affidavit when directed to do so. Reliance is also placed on Patel Ahmed Mohammad Vs Balwant Singh Rajput & Others reported in AIR 2018 SC 4886 ; Saroj Sandesh Naik (Bhosale) Vs Suryakant Venkatrao Mahadik of Bombay High Court reported in 1991 0 Supreme(Bom) 229 and K.Venkateswara Rao and Another Vs Bekkam Narasimha Reddy and Others reported in 1969 0 AIR (SC) 872, which according to the learned counsel would justify his contention that the office of the High Court is empowered to raise objections including noncompliance of Section 81(1) of the R.P.Act, calling upon the petitioner to join all the contesting candidates as parties to the election petition. If the office had raised objections, or is directed to raise objections, it would enable the petitioner to join all the contesting candidates within the time permitted under the Rules. The prayer in the memo dated 02.01.2021 and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is uncanny, to say the least. If the office had raised objections, or is directed to raise objections, it would enable the petitioner to join all the contesting candidates within the time permitted under the Rules. The prayer in the memo dated 02.01.2021 and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is uncanny, to say the least. In the considered opinion of this court, although the High Court Rules would cast a duty on the office to scrutinize the petitions and raise objections, prepare a check list and bring its objections to the notice of the learned counsel for compliance, however, non-joinder of a party to the proceedings cannot be raised as objections, especially in an election petition. Even if office objections are raised regarding non-joinder, unless leave of the court is sought, the objections and compliance of which is ministerial in nature may be complied without permission of the court, in terms of the Rules. However, there are certain aspects which would touch upon the maintainability or limitation, which objections even if raised by the office, cannot be permitted to be complied without the leave of the court. While addressing the question of impleadment of parties, the courts have held that it is not permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure to allow addition of any person as a party after the period of limitation. Recognizing this important feature more so in an election petition, in Chaturbhuj Vs. Election Tribunal, Kanpur and Another reported in AIR 1958 All 809 , it was held that neither under the Representation of the Peoples Act nor under the Civil Procedure is it permissible for an Election Tribunal to allow the addition of any person as a party who was necessary party under Section 82 of the R.P.Act after the period of limitation. In Kamala Singh Vs S.B.Malik, a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court which was considering a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which an order of the Election Tribunal dismissing the election petition on the ground of noncompliance of the provisions of Section 82 of the R.P.Act had been challenged, the Division Bench noticed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamaraja Nadar Vs Kunju Thevar and Others reported in AIR 1958 SC 687 , where it was held that, even a retired candidate is a contesting candidate and is a necessary party in clause(a) of Section 82 of the R.P.Act, in cases where, in addition to the relief for a declaration that the election of the successful candidate is void, there is a further prayer that some other candidate be declared as duly elected. It was further noticed that in Chaturbhuj’s case (supra), it was also held that even an amendment by striking off a prayer is not permissible. Under such circumstances, dismissal of the petition by the Tribunal for failure to comply with the requirements of Section 82(a) of the R.P.Act was held to be fully justified. In K.Venkateswara Rao’s case (surpa), which was in fact cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while considering these two important issues regarding non-joinder of all the contesting candidates or a candidate against whom allegations were made in terms of clause(b) of Section 82 of the R.P.Act and a further prayer made to amend the petition for removing the allegations, were elaborately considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In K.Venkateswara Rao’s case (supra), it was held that the trial of an election petition is not the same thing as the trial of a suit. The provisions of the R.P.Act go to show that an election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law. An election petition is not a suit between two persons, but is a proceeding in which the constituency itself is the principal party interested. The provisions of the R.P.Act go to show that an election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law. An election petition is not a suit between two persons, but is a proceeding in which the constituency itself is the principal party interested. It was noticed that this aspect of an election petition was emphasized again in the case of Basappa V. Ayyappa reported in 1959 SCR 611 , where it was held that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to election petitions and it would not be open to a petitioner to withdraw or abandon a part of his claim once an election petition was presented to the Election Commission. It was further held that the High Court is not to allow the amendment of a petition which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition. With regard to the addition of parties which is possible in the case of a suit under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 subject to the added party’s right to contend that the suit as against him was barred by limitation when he was impleded, no addition of parties is possible in the case of an election petition except under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 86. It was further held that an election petition stands on a different footing. The trial of such a petition and the powers of the court in respect thereof are all circumscribed by the Act. The Indian Limitation Act of 1963 is an Act to consolidate and amend the law of limitation of suits and other proceedings and for purposes connected therewith. The provisions of this Act will apply to all civil proceedings and some special criminal proceedings which can be taken in a court of law unless the application thereof has been excluded by any enactment: the extent of such application is governed by Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. It was therefore, held that the Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings like an election petition inasmuch as the R.P.Act is a complete and self-contained code which does not admit of the introduction of the principles of the provisions of law contained in the Indian Limitation Act. It was therefore, held that the Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings like an election petition inasmuch as the R.P.Act is a complete and self-contained code which does not admit of the introduction of the principles of the provisions of law contained in the Indian Limitation Act. It was argued before the Supreme Court that, if a petition were to be thrown out merely because a necessary party had not been joined within the period of 45 days no enquiry into the corrupt practices alleged to have been committed at certain elections would be possible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to hold that this is however a matter which can be set right only by the Legislature. It is worthy of note that although the Act has been amended on several occasions, a provision like Section 86(1) as it now stands has always been on the statute book but whereas in the Act of 1951 a discretion was given to the Election Commission to entertain a petition beyond the period fixed if it was satisfied as to the cause of delay. No such saving clause is to be found now. The legislature in its wisdom has made the observance of certain formalities and provisions obligatory and failure in that respect can only be visited with a dismissal of the petition. The judgments referred and cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in respect of ministerial aspects of the office of the High Court which could be permitted to be cured and complied with, such as, verification of pleadings or a defective affidavit, or annexures not being verified etc. It is in regard to such clerical mistakes it was held that they are curable defects. On the contrary, clause(1) of Section 86 mandates that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 of Section 117. Non adherence of such mandatory provisions cannot be termed to curable defects. The prayer made in the memo dated 02.01.2021 cannot be allowed. On the contrary, clause(1) of Section 86 mandates that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 of Section 117. Non adherence of such mandatory provisions cannot be termed to curable defects. The prayer made in the memo dated 02.01.2021 cannot be allowed. ORDER In view of the rejection of the prayer made by the petitioner in the memo dated 02.01.2021 and since it is found that there is non-compliance of Section 82(a), inasmuch as, prayer (b) in the petition seeking to declare the petitioner as the Returned Candidate and all contesting candidates to the election not being arrayed as parties, in terms of clause (1) of Section 86, the petition is required to be dismissed. The Election Petition is accordingly, dismissed.