IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21222 of 2008(B) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/02/2008 IN IA 179/2008 IN OP(E).24/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: ------------ VAMADEVAN K., VILAYIL VEEDU, PEDIKULAM, PULIMATH P.O., PLAVODE, 15TH WARD, PULIMATH PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. D.SATHYAN, KARIKUZHY VEEDU, PEDIKULAM PLAVODE, 15TH WARD, PULIMATH VILLAGE. 2. J.ASHOK KUMAR, JANARDHANA BHAVAN, PEDIKULAM, PULIMATH P.O., PLAVODE, 15TH WARD, PULIMATH PANCHAYATH. 3. JITHENDRAN RAVEENDRAN, VENUE COTTAGE, PEDUKULAM, PULIMATH P.O., PLAVODE, 15TH WARD, PULIMATH PANCHAYATH. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21222 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the first respondent, the elected candidate, in O.P.(Election) No.24 of 2005, on the file of Munsiff Court, Attingal. His election is challenged by first respondent by filing the election petition on several grounds including the ground provided under Section 102(1)(ca) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act'). In the election petition, though first respondent pleaded that details furnished by the petitioner with regard to his immovable properties, liabilities and cases are fake, he did not furnish the material particulars as provided under Section 91(1)(a) of the Act. I.A.No.179 of 2008 was thereafter filed for permission to amend the election petition incorporating the said details as well as to correct the defect in the verification. Petition was opposed by the petitioner contending that defects cannot be corrected by amending the election petition, and court has no power to allow such an amendment application. Under Ext.P3 order, petition was allowed. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. W.P.(C) No.21222/2008 2 3. As declared by the Apex Court, if there is curable defect in the election petition, it is not proper for the court to throw the election petition at the threshold, without granting an opportunity to the election petitioner to cure the defects, as the purpose of an election petition is to maintain the purity and sanctity of the election and the democratic institutions. Under Ext.P3 order, learned Munsiff allowed petitioner to cure the defect in the verification of the election petition. Originally election petition does not specifically show which paragraphs are to the best of his knowledge and which are to be best of his belief. The amendment granted is only to cure the said defect. So also, even though in the election petition, it was pleaded that details in form 2A furnished by the petitioner, as provided under Sub- section (1A) of Section 52 of the Act are fake, the material particulars were not pleaded. Under Ext.P3 order, learned Munsiff only permitted to incorporate the details. I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in Ext.P3 order. Petition is therefore dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge Ext.P3 order along with the final order, if it is against him. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.