JUDGMENT

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

The appellants in CA No. 6622 of 2003 and CA No. 6750 of 2003 are aggrieved by the dismissal of their Election Petition Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002 by the Bench of the High Court of Bombay on preliminary issues without any trial and have filed these two statutory appeals under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short "the Act" ) against two separate judgments of the same Bench of Bombay High Court. Since common questions of law and facts arose in both the appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Facts of the two appeals being practically similar in nature are briefly stated:-

In the Election Petition being Election Petition No. 1 of 2002 of Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar out of which C.A. No. 6622/2003 arises, the appellant challenged the validity of the Assembly election of Siolim Constituency, Goa under section 86 of the Act in which he contested but the respondent No. 1 was declared elected. The election of the returned candidate was questioned inter alia on the ground that the returned candidate ( Respondent No. 1 ) on the date of nomination and the date of election of the constituency in question was disqualified as he was the Chairman of Goa Khadi and Village Industries Board which is a statutory authority and, as such he was holding an office of profit under the Government of Goa.

3. So far as the facts of the Election Petition No. 2 of 2002 filed by the other appellant Jose Philips Domingo DSouza which has given rise to filing of C.A. No. 6750 of 2003 are concerned, only distinguishing factor was that in that petition, the constituency and the parties were different and in addition to the grounds taken in Election Petition No. 1 of 2002 an additional ground for setting aside the Election Petition was also taken.

4. Both the election petitions were filed on 16th of July 2002. The High Court issued notice to the parties on 2nd of August, 2002. However, on the date of preliminary hearing, Mr. Thali, learned counsel along with his junior appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in both the Election Petitions and waived notice on their behalf. For requisition of both the election petitions, it was alleged that the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 had collected the election petitions on 2nd of August 2002 from the Registry of the High Court. On the basis of such copies of the Election Petitions filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 8th of September 2002 for their rejection on the ground that the election petitioners had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 81(3),83(1)(a)(c) and section 83 (2) of the Act.

5. However, after the pleadings were complete, the following questions were framed:

(1) Whether the returned candidates proved that the election petitions were liable to be rejected under section 81(1) read with section 86 of the Act by reason of it being barred by limitation?

(2) Whether the returned candidates proved that the election petitions were liable to be rejected in limine under section 86 of the Act by reason of its non-compliance of sections 81(3), 83(1)(a)(c) and 83(2) of the Act?

(3) Whether the respondent No. 1 proved that the election petition was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 86 of the Act by reason of non-disclosure of any cause of action?

6. However, out of the aforesaid three questions, the High Court held the question Nos.1 and 3 in favour of the election petitioners. Since no cross objection/Appeal has been filed by the respondent No. 1 in both the appeals nor any argument was advanced by the Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 challenging the findings of the High Court relating to question Nos. 1 and 3, we do not feel it necessary to examine the findings of the High Court relating to question Nos. 1 and 3. Therefore we restrict ourselves only in relation to Question No. 2.

7. The High Co