JAMES PANGSANG KONGKAL SANGMA Vs. RUPA M. MARAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been filed by the respondent/applicant herein, for rejection of the Election Petition and for dismissal of the same on grounds of non-compliance of Sec. 81(1) of the Representation of People 's Act, 1951, and Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Election Petition filed by the election petitioner is not maintainable, at the very threshold itself, due to the non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Sec. 81(1) of the Representation of People 's Act, 1951, on the ground that the election petitioner was not present at the time of filing/representation of the election petition, as mandated under Sec. 81(1) and that the same, had been presented and filed through his advocate. It has been argued that, this fact is apparent from the reply filed to the instant application, as nowhere has the election petitioner stated that, he had personally presented the Election Petition before the Registry, but has only averred that he had sworn the same before the Notary Public on 13/4/2023. It has further been submitted that the Election Petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that, though the election petitioner has alleged corrupt practice(s) against the applicant, an affidavit as prescribed by Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to be filed in Form 25, has not been filed.

(3.) On behalf of the election petitioner in reply thereto, it has been submitted that there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of law, as laid down in the Representation of People 's Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The learned counsel has contended that substantial compliance in filing the Election Petition has been fulfilled by the election petitioner, which can be discerned from the fact that, the Registry of the High Court through the Stamp Reporter had found no defects, and had registered the Election Petition. He further submits that similar is a situation, with regard to the filing of the affidavit accompanying the Election Petition and that the said affidavit, which is as per Form 26 is exhaustive, and has covered all the allegations and statements made in the Election Petition. He therefore submits that, there being no grounds made out for rejection of the Election Petition, the application under Order 7 Rule 11, is liable to be dismissed.