JUDGMENT

E. S. VENKATARAMIAH , J.—This appeal is filed under Section 123 of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the appellant against the judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Election Petition No. 3 of 1997 dismissing an election petition filed by him on the ground that he had not complied with Section 89 (3) of the Act.

2. At the general election held in the year 1977 to elect members to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the appellant and the respondent were candidates for the seat to be filled from the Handwara Assembly Constituency. The respondent was declared as the successful candidate by the Returning Officer. Thereafter the appellant filed an election petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir challenging the validity of the respondents election on various grounds. The respondent raised two preliminary objections to the election petition - (1) that the petition had not been presented in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 89 of the Act and (2) that the copy of the election petition had not been attested by the appellant under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition as required by Section 89 (3) of the Act. The respondent contended that the petition was liable to be dismissed in view of Section 94 of the Act which provided that the High Court should dismiss an election petition which did not comply with the provisions of Section 89 or Section 90 or Section 125 of the Act. We are not concerned with the first ground as it has been held by the High Court that the petition had been validly presented in accordance with Section 89 (1) of the Act. The appellant while admitting that the copies of the of election petition had not been attested by him under his own signature to be true copies of the petition pleaded that Section 89 (3) of the Act had been substantially complied with as the copies of the election petition had been signed by his advocate and that they had been authenticated to be true copies of the petition. On the basis of the above pleadings, the High Court raised two preliminary issues - one relating to the validity of the presentation of the election petition and the other relating to the effect of the absence of attestation of the copies of the election petition by the appellant. After recording the evidence led by the parties on the preliminary issues and hearing the counsel for the parties, the High Court disposed of the petition by the judgment under appeal. In the course of its judgment while the High Court upheld the case of the appellant that the petition had been validly presented under Sec. 89 (1) of the Act it came to the conclusion that the petition was liable to be dismissed as required by Section 94 of the Act on the ground that Section 89 (3) of the Act had not been complied with by the appellant. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

3. Section 89 (3) of the Act reads : "Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be true copy of the petition."

4. Section 94 (1) of the Act provides : "The High Court shall dismiss and election petition which does not comply with the provisions of the Section 89 or Section 90 or Section 125".

5. Section 89 (3) and Section 94 (1) of the Act correspond to Section 81 (3) and Section 86 (1) respectively of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. 43 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). There is no difference between the language of Section 89 (3) of the Act and the language of Section 81 (3) of the Central Act. The language of Section 94 (1) of the Act and the language of Section 86 (1) of the Central Act are similar except with regard to the numbers of Sections referred to therein. Whereas in Section 94 of the Act, the High Court is require