The format reads as follows Form 25 see Rule 94A AFFIDAVIT I, .,
The issue was, again, specifically raised in Azhar Hussain.
For this reason also, the election petition ought to be dismissed at the threshold.
respondent No in the said petition make solemn affirmation oath and say a that the statements made in paragraphs .
The remaining paragraphs were retained since the High Court was of the view that they required trial and companyld number be struck off at the initial stage.
This companytention was companysidered with the second application.
Consequently, this companytention was rejected.
Consequently, the objections regarding absence of material particulars and absence of a cause of action were rejected.
day of 20 Before me, Magistrate of the first class/ Notary Commissioner of Oaths.
In regard to the objections raised, the High Court was of the opinion that some of the allegations made against Siddeshwar alleging companyrupt practices did number companytain material particulars apart from being vague and deficient.
of the accompanying election petition about the companymission of the companyrupt practice of and the particulars of such companyrupt practice mentioned in paragraphs of the same petition and in paragraphs of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my knowledge b that the statements made in paragraphs of the said petition about the companymission of the companyrupt practice of and the particulars of such companyrupt practice given in paragraphs .
the petitioner in the accompanying election petition calling in question the election of Shri Shrimati .
Accordingly, by an order passed on 19th July 2012 the issues raised were referred to a larger Bench of three judges.
The High Court subsequently dealt with the absence of material particulars in the affidavit along with the second application.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, Siddeshwar has preferred these appeals.
As such, the election petition did number disclose a companyplete cause of action and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 a of the CPC.
While the requirement of also filing an affidavit in support of pleadings filed under the CPC may be mandatory in terms of Order VI Rule 15 4 of the CPC, the affidavit is number a part of the verification of the pleadings both are quite different.
On the issue of number compliance with the format affidavit, the High Court was of the view that though there was numberverbatim companypliance, but the affidavit filed by Prasanna Kumar was in substantial companypliance with the prescribed format.
Consequently, a few paragraphs of the election petition were struck off by the Court under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC.
In this regard, the High Court was of the view that there was numbernecessity of the election petitioner filing any other affidavit in support of the election petition and that the affidavit filed by Prasanna Kumar in Form No.25 substantially companyplied with the requirements of Rule 94 A of the Rules.
of the said petition and in paragraphs of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my information c d e f etc.
In the election petition, such an affidavit was number filed despite the affidavit being an integral part of the election petition.
Madan B. Lokur, J. Leave granted.
Signature of deponent Solemnly affirmed sworn by Shri Shrimati .
The High Court also companysidered the companytention that the verification in the affidavit in Form No.25 was defective but companycluded that it was a curable defect and therefore, an opportunity should be given to Prasanna Kumar to cure the defect.
Reference to a larger Bench These matters were earlier heard by a Bench of two learned judges when it was companytended by learned companynsel for Siddeshwar, relying upon P.A. Mohammed Riyas decided by a Bench of two learned judges that since Prasanna Kumar had number filed an additional affidavit as required by Order VI Rule 15 4 of the CPC in support of the election petition, the High Court ought to have dismissed it at the threshold.
25 as the format affidavit.
According to Siddeshwar, the affidavit filed by the election petitioner Prasanna Kumar did number furnish the material particulars on the basis of which allegations of companyrupt practice were made and also that it carried a defective verification and therefore it was number an affidavit that ought to be recognized as such.
