Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hathi Singh vs Bheraram on 6 December, 2021
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15257/2021 Hathi Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, aged about 23 years, resident of Village Belwa Khatriya, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner Versus Bheraram S/o Shri Chhagnaram, resident of Village Belwar Khatriya, Tehshil Balesar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mehta For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order reserved on ::: 24/11/2021 Order pronounced on ::: __/12/2021 Reportable
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner, for the purpose of challenging the order dated 27.07.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur District Jodhpur (hereinfater referred to as 'the Election Tribunal' or 'the Tribunal').
2. Before adverting to the legal issues involved, it would be apt to run through the factual canvas of the case.
3. The respondent-election petitioner filed an election petition under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994') read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1994'). It was inter alia averred in the (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM) (2 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] election petition that petitioner-returned candidate and the respondent-election petitioner had submitted their nomination forms for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Belwa Khatriya. Apart from the petitioner and respondent, various other persons had submitted their nomination forms, out of which some withdrew their nomination forms whereas forms of some of them were rejected. Resultantly only two candidates, the petitioner and the respondent, remained in the contest for the post of Sarpanch.
4. The election was held on 17.01.2020 through electronic voting machine, and on the same day the votes were counted and the result was declared. The petitioner herein was declared a returned candidate.
5. The details of votes as given in the election petition are reproduced hereunder:-
Total electoral : 2917
Votes casted : 2446
Votes secured by election - petitioner : 1174
Votes secured by returned candidate : 1242
NOTA : 30
6. The election petitioner-respondent challenged the petitioner's election on the sole ground that he did not fulfill the requisite age criteria provided in Section 19(a) of the Act of 1994, viz.- 'minimum age of a candidate should be 21 years'.
7. The present petitioner (non-petitioner in the election petition) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and requested the Tribunal to reject the election petition, as the verification filed in the memo of election petition was not in accordance with Rule 83 of the Rules of 1994. The (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM) (3 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] application so filed by the petitioner herein was rejected by the Tribunal vide its order dated 18.08.2020.
8. Against the order aforesaid, passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No.11327/2020. During the course of arguments of the writ petition, the counsel for the respondent though conceded that the verification was defective, nevertheless submitted that such defect is a curable defect and in light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Moidutty Vs. P.T. Kunju Mohammed, reported in AIR 2000 SC 388, he be permitted to cure the same.
9. Acceding to the request so made, on 05.04.2021, petitioner's earlier writ petition came to be disposed of in the following terms:-
"On such categorical submission made by the learned Senior Advocate, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the respondents to cure the defect as per the statement made by Sr. Advocate Mr. Punia in the verification in question strictly in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today.
In case after curing of the defects, any defect in the petition as well as documents remains, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take it up the same before the learned court below."
10. The respondent-election petitioner, in turn, filed an application dated 09.04.2021 with the caption "Application under Order VI Rule 15 read with Section 151 CPC". While making reference of the order dated 05.04.2021, passed in earlier writ petition, the respondent submitted one verification for the election petition and another verification, verifying the documents and (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM) (4 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] prayed that he be permitted to verify the documents (which were already filed with the election petition) by signing them.
11. The application filed by the respondent-election petitioner was opposed by the returned candidate (petitioner herein) and a detailed reply was filed stating therein that the application, which has been filed by the respondent under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code, was incompetent as the provision for amendment of the pleadings are given under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. According to the petitioner, it was done intentionally in order to wriggle out from the rigours of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which restricts the right of amendment, once the trial has commenced.
12. It was also contended by the non-petitioner (petitioner herein) that the High Court had permitted the election petitioner to cure the defects 'in accordance with law' and the same cannot be done in the manner attempted to.
13. After hearing the contentions of rival parties, the Tribunal allowed the respondent's application dated 09.04.2021, with an observation that the verification is not a part of pleadings and the same has been filed under correct provision of law (Order VI Rule 15 of the Code). Resultantly, both the verifications and the affidavit were taken on record and the election-petitioner was permitted to sign the documents, which were filed with the election petition.
14. Challenging the order aforesaid, Mr. Om Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Tribunal has fallen into a manifest error of law in repelling the petitioner's argument that for the purpose of filing a fresh verification, the provisions of Order VI Rule 15 of the Code were not applicable. (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM)
(5 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] According to him, the verification is an integral part of pleading and, therefore, the enabling provision for such purpose is, Rule 17 of Order VI and not Rule 15.
15. He emphasized that Order VI Rule 15 of the Code provides for a verification to be appended at the foot of plaint or written statement and if any amendment is to be made, the same can be sought only under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. And, therefore, while considering a prayer for curing or permitting fresh verification, the Court must keep in mind the principles applicable for Order VI Rule 17 of the Code.
16. He added that had the respondent (election-petitioner) submitted the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, his application would have been hit by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code. He argued that since the issues have been framed and consequently trial has commenced, the application for amendment filed by the respondent, could not have been allowed, as no averment has been made therein that in spite of due diligence, he could not cure the fundamental lacunae in the verification.
17. According to him, the expression "due diligence" used in the proviso is of great significance and coming to the facts of the present case, the respondent cannot even plead due diligence, because he had not only filed the election petition casually but has also contested the matter till the High Court with the contention that the verification was in order. He pointed out that it was only when he did not find a way out, a liberty was sought to cure the defect taking shelter of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
18. Mr. Mehta also flagged that along with the subject application, the respondent has filed an affidavit in support of the (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM) (6 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] documents, whereas he was required to file a verification in terms of Rule 83 of the Rules of 1994. While inviting Court's attention towards the fact that the Tribunal has allowed the respondent's application and taken on record the verification separately filed with the application, without realizing that the earlier defective verification filed with the petition continues to remain on record, he wondered that where would the subsequent verification (filed with the application) be placed. According to him, the lacuna still persists because as per Rule 83 of the Rules of 1994, the pleading is invariably required to have a verification at its foot.
19. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent (election-petitioner), firstly invited Court's attention towards the provision of order VI Rule 3 of the Code and submitted that it provides for various forms in Appendix 'A' and a careful reading of the same shows that the Appendix 'A' does not contain any form of verification which clearly suggests that the verification is not a part of pleading.
20. He argued that for the purpose of correcting the error in the verification filed with the election petition so also filing verification for the documents, the relevant and applicable provision was, Order VI Rule 15 of the Code and the order under challenge rejecting petitioner's contention that the same is required to be done by an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is just and proper.
21. Reading the definition of the term "pleading" given in Order VI Rule 1 of the Code, he submitted that the pleading only means plaint and written statement and not verification. According to him, the verification not being part of the pleadings, can be amended by way of an application either filed under Order VI Rule (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM) (7 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] 15 of the Code or under inherent powers of the Court contained in Section 151 of the Code, and there was no requirement of resorting to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code.
22. Learned Senior Counsel took the Court through the provisions of Rule 2 of Order VI of the Code and pointed out that the expression "pleadings" makes no reference of verification; in a bid to substantiate his stance that verification is not a part of plaint, written statement or even the pleadings.
23. Without prejudice to his above contentions, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that Section 151 of the Code confers inherent and unlimited powers upon the Court to pass appropriate orders to serve the ends of justice. He argued that since this Court had already given the respondent (election petitioner) a liberty to cure the defects, it was required of the Tribunal to permit him to do so, without being influenced by the trivial technicalities.
24. Clinging to his stance that the application in question was filed under correct provision, learned Senior Counsel, in the alternative, submitted that mere wrong mentioning of provision cannot defeat the right of a party, if such power is traceable elsewhere. For this purpose, a reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shyam Kumar Vs. Surendra Kumar Goyal, reported in 2017 (1) WLC 651 (UC), in order to lend support to his argument.
25. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submitted that it is a settled position of law that if a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner, while referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM) (8 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] Vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (deceased) through LRs & Ors., reported in (2017) 9 SCC 700 (para No.16).
26. Responding to the arguments of Mr. Punia, based on the language of Rule 3 of Order VI of the Code, he argued that merely because form of verification is not prescribed in Appendix "A", it cannot be said that verification is not a part of pleading. He added that the language of Rule 3 of Order VI of the Code clearly suggests that it is inclusive and not exhaustive.
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal ought to have accepted petitioner's basic objection that the defect in verification of the petition and in relation to documents, cannot be cured at the strength of the subject application, which was intentionally not filed under Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code.
28. Heard.
29. Concededly, the documents which were not supported by a verification and the verification appended with the memo of election petition, (as filed) were not in tune with the provision of Rule 82 of the Rules of 1994 and these defects were permitted to be cured by this Court, in light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Moidutti (supra).
30. But then, the moot question is; how these defects were to be cured?
31. In the earlier verification, the respondent had given a general remark that para No.1 to 17 of the petition are true and correct based on his personal knowledge and legal advice. The present petitioner objected to such verification, as the same did not conform to the requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of Order VI of the Code.
(Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM)
(9 of 18) [CW-15257/2021]
32. In furtherance of the liberty granted, the respondent filed a verification indicating that para No.1 to 13 are true and correct to his knowledge and para No.14 to 17 are believed to be correct on the basis of legal advice. But said verification was filed along with an application captioned as "application under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code read with Section 151 CPC".
33. This Court is unable to uphold the view of the Tribunal that the verification is not part of pleading and if any amendment in the verification is required to be done, Order VI Rule 15 of the Code is the relevant provision.
34. In the opinion of this Court, Order VI Rule 15 of the Code enjoins that every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party. Said provision, to my mind, is only an enabling provision, which too is an integral part of Order VI, having chapter heading "Pleadings Generally". Rule 15 provides for requirement so also pre-requisites of verification, hence, in the opinion of this Court, verification cannot be treated as anything but a part of pleading, standing alone, a verification per-se has no identity much less, have any significance.
35. If the argument of Mr. Punia, learned Senior Counsel, were to be accepted that an application to amend the verification is maintainable under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code only, then a plaint can be amended under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code and so can be a written statement, under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code. Because Rule 1 of Order VII and Order VIII respectively prescribes what should be contained in the plaint and what should be contained in the written statement as does Rule 15 of Order VI regarding verification. Else, there was no need of enacting a (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM) (10 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] separate provision for amendment in the form of Rule 17, even for plaint and written statement.
36. The issue as to whether verification is a part of pleading and whether provision of Order VI Rule 17 can be pressed into service for amending verification came up before Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court. Though, the views of both the High Courts are diametrically opposed, but nevertheless it would be profitable to sail through the elucidation made in their judgments with concise narration of facts.
37. Briefly stated, the facts appertain to the case of Jotiram Shiva Patil and Ors. vs. Dwarkabai Yashwant Mardane and Ors. [2012 (4) Bom CR 190; MANU/MH/1590/2011] are that the Defendants therein moved applications before the trial court for permitting the other Defendants to sign the written statement and file the supporting affidavit in terms of Order VI of the Code and also for correcting the verification clause. The said applications came to be rejected and accordingly an appeal was preferred before the High Court wherein the Respondents- Plaintiffs' objection was that the verification clause can by no stretch of imagination be called as pleadings; it was argued that the reliance of the Petitioners-Defendants on the judgments relating to jurisdiction of the Court under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code was misplaced and the reference to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code was a misnomer as the Defendants-Petitioners by way of the said Applications were in fact invoking the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court under Section 153 of the CPC. The High Court accepted the said objection by holding as follows:
"12. Though the Trial Court has proceeded on the premise that the said applications Exhibit 43 and (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM) (11 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] 43A have been filed invoking Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. In my view, the reference to the said provision is erroneous in view of Order 6 Rule 1 and Order 7 Rule 1 of the CPC.. The permission to sign the pleadings and to sign the verification clause can by no stretch of imagination be said to be amendment of pleadings. The signing of the pleadings and the verification can only be said to be for authenticating the said pleadings by their proponents. The Trial Court has, therefore, erred in adverting to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. However, that would not make any material difference in view of the fact that the Court is sufficiently ceased with powers under Section 153 of the CPC to permit the correction of any defect or error in the proceedings so as to facilitate the determination of the real question before the Court."
38. In the case of FMC Corporation and Ors. vs. NATCO Pharma Limited [2020 IVAD (Delhi) 553;
MANU/DE/1380/2020] the Court allowed I.A. No. 4274/2020 and 5209/2020 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code by the Plaintiffs. The I.A. No. 4274/2020 sought to amend the verification below the plaint whereas during pendency of the I.A. No. 4274/2020 the Plaintiffs preferred I.A. No. 5290/2020 seeking once again to amend the verification below the plaint to rectify the error that had crept in the amended verification proposed in I.A. No. 4274/2020. The Court while allowing the said applications held as follows:
"23. Applying the above principles, it is obvious that the amendments, in the verification, below the plaint, and in para 3 of the Statement of Truth accompanying the plaint, as proposed in I.A. 5209/2020, are required to be allowed. Trial, in the case, is yet to begin. The defendant has not placed once scintilla of material, on record, or advanced any submission, whatsoever, to indicate that allowing the amendments, as sought by the (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM) (12 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] plaintiffs, would result in irreparable prejudice to the defendant. Recitals, regarding the place and date, when the plaint was verified, and the basis for claiming the contents, of the various paragraphs, in the plaint, to be true and correct, are within the knowledge of the deponent and, if, as originally filed, any error, omission, existed in respect thereof, there can be no embargo, whatsoever, on the deponent rectifying the error, by invoking the jurisdiction, of the Court, to allow amendment of the pleadings. Processual justice cannot afford to be tight-fisted. The submission that the amendments had "a significant bearing on the whole case", "a serious impact on cross examination" and "adversely impacted any possible of compliance with trial procedures" are, quite obviously, merely platitudes, with little substance. The submission that allowing the amendments, in para 3 of the Statement of Truth, and in the verification below the plaint, would impede cross examination, or due compliance with trial procedures, is completely incomprehensible; significantly, though these contentions have been advanced, in para 2 of the written submissions, placed on record by the defendant after reserving of judgment on these applications, Mr. Sai Deepak, with his experience, did not seek to so urge during arguments. The mere fact that the amendments may have been sought, consequent to the lacunae, in the verification and the Statement of Truth, having been pointed out by the defendant during arguments before this Court, cannot, either, constitute a ground to reject the prayer for amendment. At all times, it has to be remembered that the power to allow amendment is in furtherance of the duty, of the court, to decide the lis before it on merits, unencumbered by technical considerations and is required, therefore, to be exercised with the full awareness of the sweep and expansiveness it possesses. Disallowing the amendments, as sought, and allowing the suit to proceed to trial with the defects, in the verification below the plaint, and in the corresponding paragraph of the Statement of Truth, remaining unremedied, would go against the very grain and (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM) (13 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] philosophy of Order VI Rule 17. Such an approach has, therefore, sedulously to be avoided."
39. Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgments it is clear that the positions taken by the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court are at odds in so far as treatment of verification below the plaint is concerned, inasmuch as the former holds the verification below the plaint to be well within the scope of pleadings as envisaged under Order VI Rule 17, whereas the latter considers it to be outside the scope of pleadings as envisaged under Order VI Rule 17.
40. According to this Court, in order to clothe the Courts with power to decide the lis on merit and to further the course of justice, Rule 17 was inserted in Order VI for the purpose of amendment of pleadings. The only source of power to permit the correction can be found only in Rule 17 of Order VI read with Section 151 of the Code and not in Order VI Rule 15 of the Code.
41. Now comes the second question, whether the curing of the defect in the earlier verification is headed by proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code?
42. Before embarking upon this question, it would be better to have a glance over the provisions of Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code, which is being reproduced hereunder:-
"17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the respondents allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.(Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:56 PM)
(14 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
*Emphasis supplied.
43. It is pertinent to note that rule 17 of Order VI of the Code uses different expressions in its body vis-a-vis the proviso. The main provision uses expression "to alter or amend his pleadings", whereas in the proviso, the expression used is-"no application for amendment".
44. Before reading into the words 'alter' and 'amend', it would be appropriate to briefly advert to the various definitions and the legal treatment of the said words in jurisprudence.
45. Black's Law Dictionary "Alter. To make a change in; to modify; to vary in some degree; to change some of the elements or ingredients or details without substituting an entirely new thing or destroying the identity of the thing affected. To change partially. To change in one or more respects, but without destruction of existence or identity of the thing changed; to increase or diminish.
See Alteration; Amend; Change.
Alteration. Variation; changing; making different. A change of a thing from one form or state to another; making a thing different from what it was without destroying its identity.
See Alter. An act done upon an instrument by which its meaning or language is changed. Language different in legal effect, or change in rights, interests, or obligations of parties. It introduces some change into instrument's terms, meaning, language, or details. The term is not properly applied to any change which involves the substitution of a practically new document. An alteration (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:57 PM) (15 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] is said to be material when it affects, or may possibly affect, the rights of the persons interested in the document."
"Amend. To improve. To change for the better by if moving defects or faults. To change, correct, revise."
"Amendment. To change or modify for the better. To alter by modification, deletion, or addition. Practice and pleading. The correction of an error committed in any process, pleading, or proceeding at law, or in equity, and which is done either as of course, or by the consent of parties, or upon motion to the court in which the proceeding is pending. Under Fed. R. Civil P., any change in pleadings, though not necessarily a correction, which a party may accomplish once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading has been served. Such amendment may be necessary to cause pleadings to conform to evidence. Rule 15(a), (b). The amendment relates back to the original pleading if the subject of it arose out of the transaction set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading."
46. Webster's English Dictionary "alter. 1. to make different in some particular, as size, style, course, or the like; modify: to alter a coat; to alter a will; to alter course. 2. to castrate or spay.3. to change; become different or modified."
"amend. 1. to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (a motion, bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure: Congress may amend the proposed tax bill. 2. to change for the better; improve: to amend one's ways.
3. to remove or correct faults in; rectify. 4. to grow or become better by reforming oneself: He amends day by day."
47. There is a subtle yet significant difference in the expression 'alter', and 'amend'. The term 'alter' means modification or change (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:57 PM) (16 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] without bringing out the change in the body; whereas expression 'amend' has a wider meaning and larger scope, which means and includes a change, which may be substantial. An amendment always involves an alteration but an alteration does not necessarily amount to amendment.
48. A careful reading of the proviso shows that an application for amendment cannot be allowed unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, such party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.
49. According to this Court, the proviso is meant to deal with those cases, where a party seeks to amend the pleadings so as to bring new facts or new grounds on record. That is why, the proviso with restrictive scope has been worded by using expression - "that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised it before the commencement of trial".
50. In other words, the proviso comes into play when a party seeks to amend pleading in such a manner that a new fact or new ground is sought to be introduced and in that event, the party has to satisfy the Court that despite due diligence such matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial.
51. Whereas, in the cases where a party seeks to alter the pleading or cure the defect(s), which is/are not of much importance or cases which involve correction/alteration qua inconsequential facts/matters or particulars, neither is the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code applicable nor is a party required to show the reason for delay or due diligence. This view of mine gets strength from the expression 'due diligence' used in the proviso is followed by, 'could not have raised the matter'. (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:57 PM)
(17 of 18) [CW-15257/2021]
52. There is no gainsaying that the verification in support of the documents was absent and further the verification with the plaint was not in accordance with Rule 82 of the Rules of 1994 were the only two defects, and both of them were not only held to be curable but were also allowed to be cured by this Court in petitioner's earlier inning.
53. The expression 'cure the defect' used in order of this Court, itself suggests that it did not fall within the ambit of 'amend', as no new fact or ground was sought to be introduced by the respondent-election petitioner.
54. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that though the election tribunal could have permitted the respondent-election petitioner to cure the defect in its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code, yet even if some provision of the Code is to be resorted to, then it was to be done within the contours of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, because the case in hands squarely falls within the fold of expression 'alter'. Hence, proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code had no bearing so as to satisfy the Court about the due diligence.
55. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has strong reasons to affirm the order impugned dated 27.07.2021.
56. Consequently, the petition for issuing a writ of certiorari fails.
57. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
58. The Election Tribunal shall, however, permit the election petitioner to score-out the verification already filed with the election petition and then place the verification filed with the (Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:57 PM) (18 of 18) [CW-15257/2021] application dated 09.04.2021, just after the memo of the election petition so that it would seemingly be at the foot of the plaint.
(DINESH MEHTA),J /skm/-
(Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 09:22:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)