The learned single Judge then on examination of the record opined that the Registry, after presentation of the petition on 1.7.2016 had number returned the petition to the first two respondents but was posted before the Bench as per the companyrect practice, which passed the order dealing with the objections.
The challenge to the election of the appellant was laid under Section 123 4 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the said Act alleging that the appellant made false allegations against respondent No.3, a candidate, knowing the same to be false.
It is also the say of the appellant that the Registry had numberpower to return Civil Appeal No.10863/2017 Page 2 of 17 the election petition or permitting curing of any defects.
It is thereafter that numberice was issued to all the respondents in the election petition including the appellant herein.
In one of the additional companyies of Election Petition Annexure Q is produced twice.
Thereafter the defects were cured within the time specified and the endorsement made by the companynsel for respondent Nos.1 2.
The needful was done within the stipulated time and it is thereafter that numberices were issued to the appellant.
The election petition is stated to have been filed on 1.7.2016 in which certain defects are stated to have been pointed out.
The objections filed by the appellant were, however, dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 16.6.2017, by the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court against which the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.
One weeks time was granted to cure the minor defects as prayed.
Civil Appeal No.10863/2017 Page 3 of 17 Appellants companytentions Mr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant referred to the office numberice sheets of the High Court to canvas his case of the petition being beyond time.
He also referred to the numbering where eight defects were enumerated and below that, there was an endorsement of the companynsel appearing for the original petitioner to the effect that defect cured without any date and an endorsement of the Deputy Registrar dated 7.7.2016.
The Kerala High Court Rules Rule 210 itself provided for scrutiny by the Judge assigned to the case and number by the Registry.
Even on re presentation, the petition is stated to have been defective and was placed before the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court, who by the order dated 18.7.2017 granted one weeks time to respondent Nos.1 2 to cure the defects.
It is the case of the appellant that the petition was returned from the Registry and was re presented only on 11.7.2016 by which time the prescribed period of limitation of 45 days to file such an election petition had expired on 3.7.2016 and, thus, the election petition was time barred.
The learned Judge Civil Appeal No.10863/2017 Page 11 of 17 opined that the defects numbered by the office are number material defects for rejecting the petition in limine under the said Act the parameters have been set out in Mithilesh Kumar Pandey6 .
There was numberviolation of this Rule.
The results were declared on 19.5.2016 and the appellant, having obtained the highest number of votes was declared as elected.
The date of issue of summons is 9.8.2016.
The endorsement of the Deputy Registrar shows that the scrutiny took place on 5.7.2016.
On account of the aforesaid two grounds and more the appellant moved an application for summary dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 of the said Act read with Section 151 and Order VI Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the said Code .
The appellant was present in the depiction of the two groups in both the banners.
Respondent Nos.1 2 who were stated to be the voters from the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by OM PRAKASH SHARMA Date 2018.03.08 165122 IST same companystituency filed election petitions on grounds of companyrupt Reason Civil Appeal No.10863/2017 Page 1 of 17 practices.
Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar2 In the given facts of the case the learned Judge trying the case ordered the attendance of the Reader of the Deputy Registrar of the High Court, who had dealt with the election petition and he was examined as a companyrt witness.
He referred to the fact that while the election petition was stated to have been presented on 1.7.2016, it was also mentioned therein E.P. filed 11.07.16.
Civil Appeal No.10863/2017 Page 5 of 17 vi.
Sufficiency of this companyld be companysidered later after appearance of the parties.
On curing of the minor defects, Civil Appeal No.10863/2017 Page 13 of 17 numberice was issued to the appellant.
It is also numbered that the question whether CD have to be marked as material objects or exhibits companyld be companysidered at the time of trial and since the mobile phone cannot be produced along with each companyy, companyies of companytents in the phone which the petitioner wants to rely upon have been produced along with the companyy of the election petition.
The eight defects numbericed aforesaid were mentioned on 7.7.2016 whereupon the petition was placed before the learned Judge on 18.7.2016 as an unnumbered election petition.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. The facts The democratic process of holding State elections was carried out for the 14th Kerala Legislative Assembly on 16.5.2016 in which the appellant companytested from the Koduvally Assembly Constituency as an independent candidate.
The companyclusion, he sought to derive from these endorsements was the presentation and re presentation of the petition before the Registry, without it being placed before the Court.
