1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.1/2006 IN ELECTION PETITION NO.9/2004 Rajendra D.Gavit Petitioner Vs. Manisha Manohar Nimkar Respondent Mr.Pramod Patil with L.S.Deshmukh & Vinod Jadhav & Kiran Phakade i/b S.S.Pakle for the petitioner Mr.V.Z.Kankaria with Mr.Arvind J.Joshi and Mr.S.H.Joshi for the Applicant in Appln.no.1/06 in E.P.9/04 CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR,J. DATE : 13th January,2009. P.C. 1] This is an application for dismissal of the Election Petition in limini on the ground that it does not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 81 (3) and Rule 10 of Appendix II of the Rules and Forms of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Original Side) . 2] Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 provides that every Election Petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and that every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a 'true copy' of the petition. Rule-10 of Appendix II of the said Rules provides inter alia 2 that the petitioner shall furnish extra copies of the petition to be served alongwith the summons by registered post. 3] It is contended that the above provisions have not been complied with. The contention as a question of fact is sought to be supported by the endorsement made by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court on the reverse of the Election Petition which reads thus :- '' The petition is presented by R.D.Gavit today at about 4.05 p.m. alongwith two true copies of thepetition and he is identified by Ms.Ranjana Todankar i/b S.S.Pakale,Advocate for petitioner. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2000/- towards costs /S.D.by cash '' . It was contended that if in fact these copies had been lodged at the time of the filing of the Election Petition the endorsement could not have appeared also thereon i.e.on the copies. 4] Whether this is so or not is a question of fact. The endorsement shows that there is compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules . The affidavit in reply and in particular paragraph 8 thereof contains ,to say the least , more than just a plausible explanation .After the Election Petition was filed alongwith the copies and the endorsement was made on the original a xerox copy of the above endorsement was made and also attached to the copies. In the circumstances the objection raised is essentially a 3 question of fact. 5] The next preliminary objection is that the second copy does not contain the petitioner's signatures. It is, therefore, contended that it is uncertain as to which copy was filed alongwith the petition. 6] This too is a question of fact. There is nothing on record which establishes that both the copies are not filed at the same time alongwith the petition. Nor it can be said to be established that the unsigned copy only was filed alongwith the Election Petition. It is not necessary that the copy filed under Rule 10 must also be signed by the petitioner. Thus, the second objection also raises essentially a question of fact. 7] The above issues therefore can be decided only after the evidence is led. 8] I am not inclined to permit the parties to lead the evidence on this application alone . The hearing of the petition has already been delayed albeit due to the statement made by the counsel of both the sides earlier that the hearing of the Election Petition ought to await the decision in the Writ Petition. Moreover, the above objections are based on the facts which to a large extent are on the basis of inferences drawn by the respondent and not on the basis of any 4 information supplied . 9] In the circumstances the application is dismissed with the clarification that the issues raised therein may be raised in the Election Petition itself at which stage the parties shall be entitled to lead evidence in respect thereof.