Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

For convenience, Para 29,30,31 and 32 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in response to objection raised by the respondents are reproduced as under:-

"29. That the contents of para 34 of the application are prima facie misconceived and untenable for the simple reason that the document filed with the election petitioner is a certified copy of the affidavit dated 17.6.2004 filed by the petitioner with his nomination paper. There is, therefore, no question of the affidavit dated 17.6.2004 filed with the election petition being forged or fabricated. As regards the words "2 or 3" in the margin of para 2 and √ marks on the page 1 and 2 in the certified copy of this affidavit, these have not been made by the petitioner. The original affidavit was filed before the R.O. However, the certified copy of the same issued to the petitioner was handed over by the petitioner to his legal advisor for studying the case. While, studying the documents the legal advisor seems to have made certain marks and written digits 2 or 3 in the margin for his memory. This appears to have been overlooked at the time of filing the copy. In fact, the petitioner has himself accepted in para 30 (v) of the election petition the fact of omission of the words "or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3)" in para 2 of his affidavit dated 17.6.2004. And the tick marks in the certified copy of the affidavit also do not change it in any material way. The alleged interpolations in the certified copy are, thus, __________________________________________________ {10} inconsequential and do not affect the maintainability of the election petition.