JUDGMENT - R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J.:---These are four Election Petitions filed by the respective petitioners challenging the election of returned candidates. In all these cases the respective respondents have taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Election Petition on the ground that true copy of the petition is not served on the respondent. In Election Petition No. 7/95 Chamber Summons No. 1205/96 and in Election Petition No. 8/95 Chamber Summons No. 106/96 are taken out raising preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable. In Election Petition No. 11/95 a precipe is filed stating that the respondent is taking identical preliminary objection as in Chamber Summons No. 1205/96 filed in E.P. No. 7/95. In Election Petition No. 10/95 the respondent has filed an application dated 3-12-1996 stating that the petition is not maintainable. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in all the four cases. I have heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners. Since, common question of law arise for consideration, I am disposing of the preliminary objection in all the four cases by this common order.

2.In E.P. No. 7/95 the petitioner h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document