Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.87 seconds)Section 82 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 117 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970
42. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel of respondent No. 1, has drawn my attention towards the evidence of petitioner in para-35 in which he has admitted that some paras of the copy of the election petition are blank. Relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh v. Rajendra Kumar Poddar, AIR 1971 SC 342, he has submitted that discrepancies in the copy of election petition supplied to respondent No. 1 has misled respondent No. 1 and prejudiced his defence and because copy of petition supplied to respondent No. 1 is not true copy, therefore, there was failure of compliance of Section 81 (3) of the Act and petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone under Section 86(1) of the Act.
T.M. Jacob vs C. Poulose & Ors on 15 April, 1999
Mr. Mangalam opposing this submission has also relied upon a decision of Apex Court in the case of T.M. Jacob v. C. Paulose and Ors., (1999) 4 SCC 274 and has submitted that true copy of election petition within the meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act does not mean that it should be exact copy of the original petition and if there is no variation of vital nature which can mislead any person to understand the contents of petition it cannot be a case of failure of provision of Section 81 (3) of the Act. I do not want to discuss this issue as to the supply of true copy of election petition in detail here again because, as stated above, this matter along with other issues has already been decided when preliminary objection of respondent No. 1 on the maintainability of election petition was considered and decided by a detailed order dated 6.9.2001 observing that "respondent No. 1 has not disclosed any discrepancy in the copy of election petition supplied to him and original election petition and he has simply stated that such discrepancy will be demonstrated in this Court at the time of arguing the preliminary objection petition but during the course of argument also not a single discrepancy of such nature was pointed out. In absence of stating any discrepancy between the true copy and the original election petition it is very difficult to say that whether there is any discrepancy between the two and if it is there whether it is clerical or typographical or it is insignificant or it has caused prejudice to respondent No. 1. I therefore find that this objection is also without any merit."
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
D.S. Parvathamma vs A. Srinivasan on 31 March, 2003
36. Mr. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.A Ahmmed Kabeer v. A.A. Azeez and Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 650, in which it was held that :