JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:—As these appeals involve common points of law, we propose to decide them by one judgment.

Civil Appeal No. 3702 of 1982

2. This appeal arises out of election to 375-Iglas Assembly Constituency, Aligarh to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly which was held on May 28, 1980 and the result of which was declared on June 1, 1980, in which the appellant was declared elected. Respondent No. 1. Smt. Usha Rani had also contested the above-mentioned election but was defeated. Aggrieved by the result of the aforesaid election, Smt. Usha Rani filed an election petition on July 15, 1980, at the residence of the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court. Thereafter, on September 24, 1981, the appellant filed a petition before the High Court for rejection of the election petition filed by the respondent, on the ground that the copy of the petition served on him was neither attested to be a true copy nor a correct copy of the original petition, as contemplated by the provisions contained in S. 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and hence the election petition should be rejected in limine under Section 86 of the Act. Sub-s. (3) of S. 81 may be extracted thus :

"81. Presentation of petitions -

xx 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."

3. An analysis of this sub-section would reveal that every election petition should be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents and that every copy should be attested by the petitioner under his own signature. If these requirements are not followed strictly and literally, it would result to dismissal of the election petition without any trial as provided by Section 86 of the Act.

4. In the instant case, the main point raised by the appellant was that two sets of copies were filed by the election-petitioner in the High Court, one set being a correct and exact one and the other containing vital omissions and mistakes. This position is not disputed by the respondent (election-petitioner). In reply to the preliminary objection raised by the appellant, the respondent rebutted the charge on the ground that the appellant had got a correct copy as required by Section 81 (3) of the Act and, therefore, he could not be heard to complain of any non-compliance with the provisions of the aforesaid sub-section.

5. After going through the judgment of the High Court it is not clear whether the appellant received the correct copy of the petition or an incorrect one. On the other hand, on the evidence and admitted facts the following circumstances appear to be undisputed :-

(a) that two sets of copies were filed by the election-petitioner in the High Court,

(b) that one set was correct as required by the Act, and

(c) the other set was incorrect as it contained vital omissions and mistakes regarding the details of corrupt practices alleged against the appellant.

6. There is, however, no clear evidence or finding to show that the copies which were received by the appellant were correct or incorrect and there is some divergence on this point. The High Court seems to have come to the conclusion that as the respondent had filed correct copies also, she did not violate the provisions of Section 81 (3) and it was for the appellant to have chosen the correct copy from the two sets. The learned Judge of the High Court has also invoked the doctrine of benefit-of-doubt in order to cure the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 81 (3).

7. On going through the relevant evidence we find that there is overwhelming material to show that the appellant did not receive the correct copy and even the respondent in her evidence did not categorically deny this fact. The respondent in her evidence before the Court admitted that out of the 22-23 copies filed by h