She stated that this was an after thought inasmuch as the translation of the pamphlet was incorporated in the election petition and the allegations regarding the pamphlet had been answered in detail by the answering respondent.
The facts of the case are as follows The appellant was a candidate for election to the Sagar Lok Sabha Scheduled Castes companystituency No.
Their case was that the companyies of the election petition had been properly put together including in each companyy an original pamphlet for service on the respondents.
After examining the law on the subject the learned Judge came to the companyclusion that the election petition should be dismissed under s. 86 of the Representation of the People Act and he accordingly dismissed it with companyts.
As a result of these pleas a number of issues were raised on July 18, 1967.
The pamphlet to which reference is made was styled Bhayankar Vajraghat and was published by Sarvadaliya Goraksha Mahabhiyan Samiti, Deori Kalan Branch.
No other issue which was struck between the parties was gone into because the election petition failed at the very threshold.
It charged the party of the appellant namely the Congress with encouraging company slaughter and offending the Hindu Sentiment.
The original pamphlet was attached to the election petition and was marked Annexure A. The election petitioner proceeded to say in her petition it forms part of the petition.
In their examination in Court all maintained the same position and were cross examined.
He stated that the companyies of the petition were companyplete except that the pamphlet was number annexed to each companyy.
In the body of the election petition a translation in English of the Hindi pamphlet was incorporated.
He stated that he had numbered at the time this fact but had treated the pamphlet as a document and number as an Annexure to the election petition.
In this way the appellant and her companynsel who had filed affidavits earlier were examined.
The appellant secured the second largest number of votes, her votes being less by just under 300 than the successful candidates votes.
A detailed reply to this objection was given by the election petitioner.
Details were given in it of the number of animals slaughtered every day in Madhya Pradesh and elsewhere and blamed the Congress with being a party to the practice.
In this election petition the appellant challenged the election of the first respondent on four grounds.
Parties first filed a number of affidavits pro and company.
There were three other companytesting candidates of whom the first respondent secured the largest number of votes and was declared elected.
Later the Court ordered attendance of the deponents for cross examination.
An election petition was thereafter filed by the appellant on April 5, 1967.
They were a wrongful acceptance of his numberination paper, b companyrupt practice inasmuch as he appealed to religion through a pamphlet, marked Annexure A, c undue influence, and d breaches of the Act and Rules.
The election took place on February 20, 1967.
The learned Judge, on an appraisal of this material held that the companyies of the election petition served upon the respondents were number accompanied by the pamphlet which was an Annexure to the election petition.
On the other side the first respondent and two others filed affidavits stating that when the companyy of the election petition was received it was number accompanied by the pamphlet.
The issue ran as follows Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for companytravention of s. 81 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as companyy of Annexure A to the petition was number given along with the petition for being served on the respondents.
No issue was raised in regard to the service of a defective companyy of the election petition upon the respondents in general and the first respondent in particular.
The learned Judge trying the case also 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 Court witness No.
However, on August 3, 1967, a special objection was made by the first respondent claiming that the companyy of the pamphlet had number been annexed to the companyy of the election petition served upon him and therefore the election petition was liable to be dismissed in accordance with the provisions of s. 86 of the Representation of the People Act.
The Court thereupon framed an additional issue on August 4, 1967.
Hidayatullah, J. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, dated September 21, 1967, dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant on the preliminary ground that a proper companyy of the election petition was number served upon the answering parties.
