PATHUMMA UMMAR Vs. SHINY JOLLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT in Election (O.P.) No.13 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Muvattupuzha is the petitioner before me challenging the preliminary finding entered by the learned Munsiff (Election Tribunal) that the Election (O.P.) (for short, "the petition") is maintainable.

(2.) PETITIONER who is the elected candidate challenged maintainability of the petition filed by the respondent, defeated candidate mainly on two grounds, that there is no proper verification of the petition as required under Section 91 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short, "the Act") and Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") and secondly, that the petition does not disclose any cause of action. There was also an objection that the petition was not presented by the respondent in person to the learned Munsiff which ofcourse learned Munsiff after referring to the records found is not correct in that petition was presented to the learned Munsiff in person by the respondent. On the other two grounds referred above, learned Munsiff found against petitioner and held that the petition is maintainable. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that findings on the above two preliminary objections are not correct. Learned counsel pointed out that it is from the impugned order that petitioner learnt that in the verification portion of the petition the place of verification is added but, a copy of the petition given to the petitioner does not mention the place of verification. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Annexure-I, copy of petition served on petitioner. It is also submitted by learned counsel that if at all the place of verification is written in the petition that can only be an interpolation after the petition was filed which cannot be taken into account. As regards alleged absence of cause of action in the petition is concerned, it is contended that in the absence of specific mention regarding cause of action the petition is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the decision in Laxmi Kant Bajpai v. Haji Yaqoob and others ((2010) 4 SCC 81).

(3.) NOW the contention is that the petition did not, in its verification portion mention the place at which respondent had signed the petition. Learned Munsiff has observed from the records that verification in the petition read as follows: