( 1 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that there is no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court declining to dismiss the election petition at the preliminary stage.

( 2 ) IT appears to us that the election petition does not contain any allegation which can be said to fall within the provisions of Section 123 (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that, therefore, an affidavit that meets the requirements of the proviso to Section 83 was not necessary.

( 3 ) IT is not disputed, in the second place, that the xerox copies of the originals in Marathi of the annexures to the election petition that were furnished to the appellant (elected candidate) were duly signed, verified and endorsed, as required by Section 81 (3 ). These xerox copies were accompanied by English translations and what is contended is that the translations had not been signed, verified and endorsed as required by section 81 (3 ). The election petition would have been complete if served on the returned candidate without the translations. We do not, therefore, think that the fact that the translations that were given were not signed, verified and e