JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J. :— This petition for special leave is directed against an interlocutory Order dated July 16, 1983 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejecting the application of the petitioner for dismissing the election petition of the respondent in limine under S. 86 of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The petition arises out of an election to the Siddipet Assembly constituence in Andhra Pradesh which took place on January 5, 1983. live petitioner was declared elected to the said Assembly. The respondent filed an election petition in the High Court alleging certain corrupt practices.

3. The short point for consideration before us is as to whether or not the election petition was liable to, be dismissed in limine under S. 86 of the Act as the copies of the documents and schedules, which formed an integral part of the election petition, were not supplied to the petitioner which amounted to a clear breach of the mandatory provisions contained in S. 81 (3) of the Act.

4. The High Court alter hearing both the parties dismissed the application of the petitioner for throwing out the election petition of the respondent in limine. We have heard counsel for the parties at length and it seems, to us that the matter is no longer res integra and is covered by a decision of this Court in in Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar (1968) 3 SCR 13: (AIR 1968 SC 1079) to which we shall refer hereafter.

5. On the findings of the High Court three facts are clearly proved :

(a) that when the election petition was filed, it was accompanied by as many copies as were the respondents,

(b) that the election petition was duly verified and the copies thereof were accompanied by the necessary schedules containing the details of corrupt practices, and

(c) that the schedules or the annexures to the petition were also signed by the election petitioner (respondent).

6. The only complaint of the petitioner was that the copy of the election petition served on him was not accompanied by copies of the schedules and hence there was a clear breach of the provisions of S. 81 (3) of the Act. Section 81 (3) may be extracted thus :

"81. Presentation of petitions-

xx xx xx

(3) 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 a true copy of the petition."

An analysis of the above reveals -

(a) that the petition should be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents,

(b) that every such copy should be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.

7. It is not disputed in this case that both these conditions were fully satisfied.

8. Section 83 of the Act contains four requirements, viz.,

(a) that the election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts relied upon by the petitioner,

(b) that the petitioner should set forth the full particulars of the corrupt practices alleged,

(c) that the petition should be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid, down in the. Code of Civil Procedure and where a corrupt practice is alleged the petition should also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form, giving the particulars of the corrupt practice, and

(d) any schedule or annexure to the petition should also be signed and verified by the petitioner.

9. These conditions have also been fulfilled in the present case.

10. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the schedules and other documents formed an integral part of the petition, the same should have been served on the petitioner (respondent in the High Court) before it could be said that the provisions of Ss. 81 and 82 of the Act had been complied with. It was further argued that in the absence of such a compliance, the petition was liable to be rejected in limine under S. 86 of the Act. We are, however, unable to agree with this