KIRT RAM SINGH Vs. SEWA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri R. D. Jain, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Rameshwar Bhargava, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1.

(2.) This is an application presented on 15-3-2001 praying for recalling of the order dated 21-1-2000 whereunder the allegations regarding corrupt practices against respondent No. 1 were struck off. It may be noticed that vide the order dated 21-1-2000 the allegations of corrupt practices as contained in paragraph 1-B(a) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and grounds B(i), (ii) and (iii) had been directed to be struck off from the election petition with a further direction that Annexures R-1 to R-8 shall not be taken into consideration and utilised against the respondent No. 1. Under the same order the prayer made in the application, I.A. No. 7661/99, for taking on record the affidavit and the copy of the election petition which has been submitted all over again along with a new affidavit was rejected.

(3.) This Court in its aforesaid decision placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Smt. Shipra v. Shantilal Khoiwal, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1691 and other decisions of the Apex Court had held that the affidavit filed in support of the election petition including copies of the affidavit had to be taken as integral part of the election petition. In the case of Dr. Smt. Shipra (supra) the Apex Court taking into consideration the implications arising under S. 83(1) along with S. 83(2) thereof, had held that the affidavit referred in the proviso to S. 83(1) also forms part of the election petition and that the election petition is in truth and reality one document consisting of two parts i.e. one being election petition proper and the other being the affidavit referred to in the proviso to S. 81(1) of the Act. It was also observed that the copy of election petition required to be filed under S. 81(3) read along with S. 83 has to include a copy of the affidavit. The Apex Court in this connection referred to its earlier decision in the case of M. Kamalam v. Dr. V. A. Syed Mohammad, reported in AIR 1978 SC 840, at page 844, and it was observed that in case the copies of the affidavit are not faithful and do not include the endorsements, a valuable right of the respondent is taken away and considering the purpose which the copy of the endorsement would serve, it could not be said that this portion was not the integral part of the affidavit.