P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Counsel, for the applicant/Respondent returned candidate. Also heard Mr. S. Shyam, learned Counsel for opposite party/election Petitioner. 2. "Dismiss this election petition at the threshold." Demands the applicant/Respondent returned candidate. He has filed the instant misc. case under Order 6, Rule 16read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ' Code of Civil Procedure in short) and Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'RP Act' in short). For him, there are 2 (two) preliminary grounds:

(1) The Election Petitioner has not furnished any affidavit along with verification thereby rendering the entire election petition and the pleadings contained therein unworthy of any trial; and

(2) Schedule of corrupt practice attached to the election petition is neither supported by any verification as mandatorily required under Section 83(2)of the RP Act read with Order 6, Rule 15(4) of Code of Civil Procedure nor accompanied by any affidavit.

3. Applicant's learned Counsel, Mr. S.S. Dey, exhaustively deals with the relevant provisions under the RP Act and the amended Code of Civil Procedure. Reference has been made by him to Section83(1)(c) of the RP Act which provides that the election petition should be signed by the Petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for verification of pleadings. Special reference has been made to the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that where the Petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition should also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegations of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. Additionally, special reference has been made to provision under Section 83(2) of RP Act which provides that any schedule or annexure to the election petition should also be signed by the Petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. He then refers to Order 6, Rule 15(4) of Code of Civil Procedure which provides that a person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleading. In order to make his point, he takes me through pages 95 and 96 of the election petition. So also, pages 99-104 of the election petition "schedule of corrupt practice", which, according to the applicant's learned Counsel, are not supported by any mandatorily required verification. He again turns to pages 112-282 of the election petition "annexure to election petition", to convince me that they are without any verification. Reliance has been put by Mr. Dey, learned Counsel, on Narender Singh v. Malaram and Anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC 3655: (1999) 8 SCC 198 and H.D. Raveena v. G. Puttuswamy, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 217.

4. Referring to decision in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, Mr. Dey, learned Counsel, submits that prior to amendment of Code of Civil Procedure, a plaint was to be accompanied by a verification only but after the amendment, apart from verification, an affidavit is required to be filed along with the plaint under the amended Section 26(2) of Order 6, Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure and it has an affect of fixing additional responsibility on the deponent as to the truth of the facts stated in the pleadings. Referring to verification in the election petition on page 105, it is submitted that they are extremely vague and it is not stated as to what was the source of information on which pleadings are based and which part really is on the basis of personal knowledge and information, is not indicated. The opposite party/election Petitioner, according to Mr. Dey, learned Counsel, has filed the verification in a very casual manner without bothering for the mandatory provision in Order 6, Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure. Agai