Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"That the election petition and the Schedules A and B Annexed with the petition and affidavits are not attested to be true copies of the petition as required by Rule 12(f) of the Rules of procedure framed by the Hon'ble Court."

2. After hearing the counsel for the parties on the above mentioned preliminary objections, I noticed their respective arguments in my order dated May 26, 1972. It was not disputed that the copy of the petition furnished to the respondent had not been attested by the petitioner under his own signatures to be a true copy of the petition. The identity of the copy of the petition produced before me by the respondent as being one of the copies which had been furnished by the petitioner was not disputed. Counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that this single copy had by mistake been left defective in the above mentioned sense but as may as ten other copies prepared by him did not suffer from that defect. It was argued that whereas one copy of the petition had been served on the respondent in the ordinary manner through a process server, another copy had been served on him by registered post. This fact was admitted by the respondent. He was, therefore, called upon the produce the other copy of the petition which had been served on him. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the copy of the petition served on the respondent being signed by the petitioner both at the place meant for his signatures and also under the verification, it should be held that there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of sub section (3) of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) was left over to be decided after seeing the duplicate copy of the petition served on the respondent. At the joint request of the counsel for the parties, the hearing of the arguments on the preliminary points was, therefore, adjourned to the next day. Mr. Jagan Nath Kaushal the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted on the next day that his client did not receive the duplicate copy of the election petition by registered post. After hearing the remaining arguments of the counsel for the parties, it was thought unnecessary to travel into the merits of the controversy in view of the law settled in this respect by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, AIR 1964 SC 1027.