THOMAS Vs. VARGHESE PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Petition is filed challenging Ext. P1 order passed by the Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda in O.P.3/95. Petitioner is the respondent in O.P. 3/95. That is a petition filed by the present respondent challenging the election of the petitioner to the Irinjalakuda Municipality from Ward No. VI. Nomination of the respondent was rejected. Hence, election petition was filed.

(2.) Petitioner contended that the election petition was not maintainable. He urged two contentions; (1) Copy of the election petition served on him was not properly attested by the respondent and (2) Application was not accompanied by affidavit as provided in the Act. Learned Munsiff found that there was an affidavit accompanying the application. With regard to the first contention, learned Munsiff found that the respondent has not signed the last page and it was stated as true copy. Learned Munsiff found that the petition is strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Thus, election petition was declared to be maintainable by the Munsiff. It is challenging Ext P1 that the present Original Petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext. P1 order is against law and facts. He further submitted that respondent has not duly attested copy of the O.P. Respondent has not put his signature on all pages of the petition.