SAHEBRAO SADASHIV MORE Vs. CHAINSUKH MADANLAL SANCHETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Shri K. H. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS is an application filed by the respondent No. 1 for dismissal of the election petition under section 86 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 for non-compliance of the provisions of section 81 (3) of the Representation of peoples Act (hereinafter referred to the 'said Act') and also for non-compliance of the provisions of section 83 of the said Act.

(3.) THE first objection raised by the respondent No. 1 in the written statement in para (1-d) is that there is a non-compliance of provisions of section 81 (3) of the said Act. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that as per the provisions of section 81 (3) of the said Act, every election petition has to be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every copy has to be attested by the petitioner under his own signature that it is the true copy of the petition. It is alleged that the copies which were filed by the petitioners were the xerox copies of the original petition which were presented in the Court and that these xerox copies were made after the petition was signed and affirmed. It is alleged that there was no signature of the petitioner in original anywhere in the body of the petition upto page-35 where the affidavit in support of the petition comes to an end and on page-35 there is a typed endorsement "verified to be true copy-petitioner". It is alleged that in the space in this endorsement, the petitioner was supposed to subscribe his original signature to certify the copy to be a true copy of the original petition and it is the allegation of the petitioner, that this has not been done by the petitioner. It is, therefore, alleged that the copies which were served on the respondents are not copies certified by the petitioner under his own signature to be true copies of the original election petition. It is, therefore, alleged that there is a non-compliance of section 81 (3) of the Act.