The precise objection raised in I.A. No.5957 of 1999 was to the effect that since election petition had been drawn up in Hindi language and number English language the same was liable to be dismissed number having been drawn up in English language as required by Rule 2 b of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules hereinafter referred to as the High Court Rules .
The election petition had been drawn up in Hindi language.
In the elections to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, held in 1998, the appellant was declared elected from Assembly Constituency No.
LITTTTTTJ This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 4th February, 2000 rejecting applications I.A. Nos.
290, Maheshwar.
The main objection projected by the appellant in IA 2806/99 to the maintainability of the election petition was that since the affidavit filed in support of allegations of companyrupt practice was number drawn up in the manner prescribed by Section 83 1 of t e Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act read with Rule 94 A hereinafter the Rules in the prescribed form No.25, the defect was fatal and the election petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 86 1 of t e Act for number compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act.
The affidavit filed in support of the election petition was also drawn up in Hindi anguage.
The defeated candidate Respondent herein filed an election petition challenging his election n various ground of companymission of companyrupt practices, detailed in paragraphs 5 to 17 of the election petition.
2806/99 and 5957/99 filed by the appellant, the returned candidate, seeking rejection of an electio petition filed by the respondent challenging his election on various grounds companytained in those applications.
Both applications were resisted by the election petitioner.
