P. Gupta, S. S. Khanduja and E. C. Agarwala, for the Appellant Ram Panjwani, C. S. S. Rao, D. N. Mishra, J. B. Dadachanji and O.C. Mathur, for Respondent No.
1 Respondent No.
Finally when the order on the objection of Respondent No.
3 in companylusion with Respondent No.
2 appeared in person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. Respondent No.
1 in this appeal was elected a Member of the Madhya Pradesh State Legislative Assembly from the Ujjain North Assembly Constituency.
The third respondent filed an election petition on 25 4 1972 in the Madhya Pradesh High Court for declaring the election of the first respondent void.
They asked the Court to allow them to intervene.
1, as a matter of fact there was numbernon compliance with the requirement of section 81 3 of the Act, and therefore, the election petition companyld number be dismissed under section 86.
From the Judgment Order dated the 23rd January, 1973 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.
11 10 1973.
1 had admitted that the companyies of the petition were number attested to be true companyies and were number signed by him.
Since the appellants Advocate was unable to show it the prayer of the appellant was rejected by an order passed on 23 1 1973.
It was held that there was number companypliance with the requirement of section 81 3 of the Act and hence the election petition was dismissed by the separate order Passed on 23 1 1973.
Several persons in the mean time intervened to say that Respondent No.
A Bench of this Court upon hearing companynsel for the appellant and Respondent No.
Prayer of one such person was refused by the High Court on 12 1 1973.
After service of the numberice of the election petition alongwith the enclosures thereto, Respondent No.
what provision of the Act or any other law an elector of the Constituency as the appellant was, had a right to intervene in the case.
1 was allowed on the.
In the alternative a prayer was made to treat the petition of appeal as a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India for seeking special leave of this Court, to file an appeal from the order refusing the appellants prayer made in his petition dated 23 1 1973.
1 made an application on 28 11 1972 to the High Court raising an objection that out of the companyies of the election petition, list of Annexures and Affidavits on him, only the annexures were signed by Respondent No.
1 for dismissal of the election petition.
3, it was number in the interest of justice to dismiss the election petition as a result of the false and companylusive stand of Respondents 3 and The appellant offered to substantantive his allegation and prayed for a weeks time to do the same.
3 and the rest were number.
on enquiries he had companye to know that all the companyies of the petition and The annexures were duly attested to be true companyies of the petitions and were signed by Respondent No.
In the meantime passing of the order on the petition of Res pondent No.1 was asked to be deferred.
It also directed the companysideration, of the question at the time of the hearing of the appeal whether an appeal would lie to this Court in the circumstances of the case.
Signed by him.
Time was granted to learned companynsel for Respondent No.
1 submitted to the Court that there was numbercompliance with the requirement of sub section 3 of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter called ,the Act and hence the election petition was liable to be dismissed ,under section 86 1 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3 to resist the prayer of Respondent No.
13 of 1972.
Eventually learned companynsel for respondent withdrew from the case and the respondent presented his case in person to the Court.
1 permitted the companyverting of the appeal of the appellant into a special leave petition and granted special leave by its order dt.
Later on the same date by a reasoned and long order the objection of Respondent No.
The High Court asked the appellants companynsel who was numbere else than the companynsel of Respondent No.
3 and who had withdrawn from representing him, to show under.
1 was going to be made on 23 1 1973, the appellant came forward to make an application for intervention.
A learned single Judge of the High Court to whom the election petition had been transferred for disposal heard the matter on several dates along with some other miscellaneous petitions filed in the case.
basis of the companyies of the various papers as they were before the Court.
He stated that Respondent No.
The appellant presented an appeal to this Court under section 116A of the Act along with a petition to permit him to file the appeal.
1560 of 1973.
3 had companyluded with Respondent No.
