AJAY KUMAR SAXENA Vs. TILAK RAJ BEHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S. K. Mandal, learned counsel for the election petitioner as well as Sri Sudhanshu Dhulia, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the returned candidate and Sri D. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 on the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) read with Section 86 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 ( for short the Act) moved on behalf of the respondent no. 1 with the prayer that the election petition may be dismissed in limine.

(2.) IN paragraph no. 6 of the affidavit filed along with the application, it has been stated that the election petitioner did not comply with the mandatory provision of Section 83 (1) proviso, wherein it has been provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the election petitioner in reply has submitted that the affidavit as required by law was filed on the same day on the prescribed Form No. 25.