BHARTENDRA SINGH Vs. RAMSAHAI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE Nos. 8 (a) and 8 (b) :--Shri Thakur the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that as the respondent No. 7 is neither a necessary nor a proper party for the decision of this election petition and thus his name is struck off from the array of the respondents the allegation made in paragraph 12 of the petition and the particulars supplied in annexure 7 are not now necessary, and paragraph no. 12 of the petition may be permitted to be struck off. Counsel for the other parties have also raised no objection to this submission, and the result is that paragraph No. 12 of the petition is ordered to be struck off. With this view, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the allegation made in this paragraph suffers from lack of material particulars. As a consequence, it is now unnecessary to keep the issue for proof and it is also therefore, struck off.

(2.) II. Issue No. 9:-- Shri Dharmadhikari the learned counsel for respondent No. 1. has taken me through the affidavit filed by the petitioner and contended that in para 1 (A) of the affidavit, the petitioner has said that corrupt practices pleaded in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the petition along with the pleadings in paragraph 2 of the same petition and in paragraphs of the annexures 1, 2 and 3 along with their full leaf-lets, are true to his knowledge and information received and believed to be true and in paragraph (b) again he has said that the statements made in the abovesaid paragraphs are true to his information, which are not according to the provisions of Order 19, Rule 3 of the Code and the affidavit is therefore, defective.

(3.) SHRI Thakur. the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand. has urged that in para B of his affidavit, he has again repeated that the aforesaid statements are true to his information also and thus there is no defect in the form of the affidavit filed which may only be a repetition.