( 1 ) THIS is an application on behalf of the second respondent under Order 7 Rule II and section 151 Civil Procedure Code. read with section 86 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (for short the Act of 1951 ). On November 28, 1993, the Returning Officer declared the second respondent to have been elected to the Delhi Legislative Assembly from Palam Constituency No. 30. The petitioner who was also a candidate from the said constituancy filed the present election petition under sections 80-A and 81 of the Act of 1951, challenging the election of the second respondent. By the instant application the second respondent prays for the dismissal of the election petition on various grounds.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicant has raised the following contentions in support of the application for dismissal of the election petition :-

(1) that the election petition does not comply with the provisions of section 81 of the Act of 1951;

(2) that the copy of the election petition marked z furnished to the applicant has not been duly attested by the petitioner;

(3) that the copy of the election petition is not the true copy of the original petition as required by law;

(4) that copy of the election petition furnished to the applicant has not been attested and verified in the manner laid down in section 83 (1) (c) and section 83 (2) of the Act of 1951;

( 3 ) ELABORATING his pleas the learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that the petitioner has not furnished a copy of the memo of parties alongwith the copy of the election petition supplied to the respondent, that in the copy of the index of papers given to the respondent, there was an omission, in that serial No. l5-A relating to receipt of translation fee is missing, that in para 6 of the copy of the election petition furnished to the respondent, the receipt number and the date in regard to deposit of a sum of Rs. 2000. 00 on account of security for costs of the petition are not given, that the verification at the bottom of the copy of the election petition is incomplete in as much as numbers of the paragraphs which are based on information and those based on legal advise are not mentioned, that the copy of the election petition also does not mention the date in the penultimate line of the last para thereof, that portions of Annexure P-5 accompanying the copy of election petition are illegible, and that the election petition has not been properly attested by the petitioner in the manner contemplated by Section 81 (3) of the Act of 1951. On the ground of aforesaid omissions and deficiencies, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the election petition was liable to be dismissed under section 86 read with sub-section (3) of Section 81 and sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Act.

( 4 ) AT this stage, it will be convenient to refer to Section 81 (3), which reads as under:-

"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. "

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the aforesaid sub-section, the election petition has to be accompanied by the requisite number of copies and every such copy is required to be attested by the petitioner under his own signatures to be true copy of the petition. The consequence of the violation of sub-section (3) of Section 81 is provided in sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Act. Section 86 (1) reads as follows:-

"the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117. Explanation-An order of the High Court dismissing an election petition under this sub-section shall be deemed to be an order made under clause (a) of section 98. "

( 6 ) AS is clear from the above, the filing of the election petition in violation of subsection (3) of Section 81 must lead to the