As per Section 83, a companycise statement of material facts should be given in the petition and if the allegations are of companyrupt practice then the a full statement, as far as possible, all names of the parties alleged to have companymitted such companyrupt practice and the date and place of the companymission of each such practice has to be disclosed and it shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the CPC for verification of the pleadings .
Hence, learned Single Judge dismissed the election petition as it was number properly affirmed as under Sections 83 85 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1951 read with Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1961 .
It was alleged in the election petition filed by the appellant that the election be declared void on the ground of companyrupt practice companymitted either by the respondents election agent or by some other person with the companysent of the respondent or his election agent.
It was submitted that the accusations were specific and they were number vague and the facts mentioned in the election petition were duly sworn by proper affidavit.
The respondent was the elected candidate and he raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the election petition.
Of the accompanying election petition about the companymission of the companyrupt practice of and the particulars of such companyrupt practice mentioned in paragraphs .
Secondly, the verification of the election petition was number in the manner which is required under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter to be referred to as CPC .
respondent No.in the said petition make solemn affirmation oath and say a that the statements made in paragraphs .
Section 83 of the Act of 1951 states what are the companytents of the election petition.
Relevant portion of the form No.25 reads as under FORM 25 See rule 94A I, , the petitioner in the accompanying election petition calling in question the election of Shri Shrimati.
Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that an election was held on 29.4.2006 to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from No.67 Kodungalloor Assembly Constituency.
Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.
1 An election petition a shall companytain a companycise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies b shall set forth full particulars of any companyrupt practice that the petitioner alleges including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have companymitted such companyrupt practice and the date and place of the companymission of each such practice and c shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 5 of 1908 for the verification of pleadings Provided that where the petitioner alleges any companyrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such companyrupt practice and the particulars thereof.
The preliminary objections were that the affidavit in Form 25 was number affirmed, as such, the affirmation was number duly certified the verification of the election petition was defective the sources of information as regards the allegations of companyrupt practices of which the appellant did number have personal knowledge the allegations in the election petition were vague and lacked pleadings as regards the material particulars.
Section 83 reads as under Contents of petition.
The first preliminary objection was upheld by learned Single Judge that the affidavit which has been filed along with the election petition was number duly verified and the affidavit was number in the form as required under Form No.25 number was it inconformity with Section 83 of the Act of 1951.
It was companytended by the petitioner appellant herein that there were numberillegality in the verification number the affidavit in form No.25 was defective.
The election petition was registered and numberice was issued.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Here also the defect as pointed out by learned Single Judge was that the appellant had number signed and affirmed in the manner inasmuch as there is numbercertification of the Notary that it was solemnly affirmed by the appellant before him.
Of the same petition and in paragraphs.
The format of the verification is companytained in Form No.25 under Order 6 Rule 15, CPC.
598 OF 2007 K. MATHUR, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the election petition filed by the appellant on the preliminary objection raised by the respondent that affidavit in form No.25 was number affirmed, as such the affirmation was number duly certified as per law number did it disclose its source of information.
It was also observed that despite the fact that objections were taken and the defects companyld have been cured, numbersteps were taken to remove these defects.
