it appears that the election tribunal had framed two issues for determination.
appeal from the judgment and order dated april 15 1964 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in misc.
the first respondent was declared elected and the appellant challenged his election alleging several acts of companyrupt practices publication of false statements filing of false accounts etc.
if so whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
on march 2 1964 the first respondent filed a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the companystitution in the high companyrt of madhya pradesh challenging both the orders and asked that they be quashed.
they were issue number 18 whether the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his petition is bad in law as number properly sworn before a competent officer duly authorised to attest and authenticate an affidavit and does number also companyply with the provisions of section 83 of the representation of the people act and the rules made thereunder.
the high companyrt by its order number under appeal by certificate quashed the two orders and the tribunal was directed to deal further with the petition in the light of the order of the high companyrt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 437 of 1965.
petition number 90 of 1964.
if number what is its effect on this petition?
s. pathak y. s. dharmadhikari and a. g. ratnaparkhi for respondent number 1.
on february 14 1964 the first respondent filed an application drawing attention to the latter part of issue number 20 and asked inter alia for a finding whether the election petition was number liable to be dismissed when the affidavit was number proper the tribunal by an order passed on february 24 1964 rejected the last companytention and held that as a fresh affidavit was filed the petition companyld proceed to trial.
moghe was the clerk of companyrt in the district companyrt jabalpur.
no action was taken against that order.
the election tribunal by an order dated october 31 1963 accepted the objection but allowed the filing of a proper affidavit and a fresh affidavit was taken on record.
this concession was sought to be withdrawn in this appeal by the appellant and on looking into the record we were satisfied that the companycession was wrongly made and should be allowed to be withdrawn.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. this appeal arises from an election petition filed after the last general election to the madhya pradesh legislative assembly in respect of the election from the kasdol legislative assembly companystituency held on may 4 1963.
the election petition was supported by an affidavit sworn before k. s. moghe officer for administering oaths on affidavits jabalpur.
the first respondent objected that the affidavit was number sworn before the proper authority as required by rule 94 a of the conduct of election rules 1961 and it was therefore prayed that the election petition should be dismissed or the allegations about companyrupt practices should be struck out.
s. gupta for the appellant.
issue number 20 whether the various alleged acts of companyrupt practices mentioned in the petition are duly supported by an affidavit as required under section 81 3 of the representation of people act ?
