BHOOR SINGH GHADIYA Vs. TARA BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objections dated 18.4.1994 and the additional grounds dated 5.7.1994 filed by the respondent praying for the dismissal of the Election Petition and carefully perused the relevant record.

(2.) The first preliminary objection is that there is no verification of the petitioner on the documents, which find place at page 80 and 83 of the copies of Election Petition Annexures R-1 and R-2 supplied to the respondent, which indicates that in the original Election Petition also the verification on the aforementioned documents, which form integral part thereof, have not been signed or made by the petitioner and as such the Election Petition deserves to be dismissed. To my mind this objection is devoid of any force and substance, because the documents at page 80 and 83 of the original Election Petition have been duly signed and verified by the petitioner. In the copies of Election Petition Annxures R1 and R2, the documents at page 80 and 83 have been attested as true copies and signed by the petitioner. In Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs. Roop Singh Rathore & Ors., 1964 AIR(SC) 1545 interpreting the provisions of section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short the Act), it has been held that when every page of the copy served on the respondent to the election petition was attested to be a true copy under the signature of the petitioner, a fresh signature below the word "petitioner" was not necessary and that a defect in verification is not fatal to the election petition and that such a defect can be cured. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in F.A. Sapa Etc. Vs. Singora and others, 1991 AIR(SC) 1557. Therefore, this objection can not be sustained.

(3.) The second preliminary objection is that on copies of election petition Ex. R 1 and R 2, signatures of petitioner are missing on the election petition and verification thereof and as such those are not true and correct copies of the original election petition. A bare perusal of Ex.R 1 and R 2 unmistakably reveals that copies of the election petition and verification thereof have been attested as true copy and signed by petitioner Bhoor Singh. Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar's case (supra), it was not necessary for the petitioner to have separately signed the copies of election petition and verification thereof. Therefore, the second objection is also meritless and the same is hereby over-ruled.