The petitioner – a successful candidate in the election held under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, has come before this Court for the second time is an attempt to ensure premature termination of the Election Petition filed against her by the 1st respondent – an unsuccessful candidate. The present attempt is to contend that there is no proper verification of the Election Petition and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.

2. It will be advantageous, first of all, to refer to Sec.91 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act with emphasis on Clause 1 (C).

“91 Contents of petition.- (1) An election petition –

(a) x x x x x x x x

(b) x x x x x x x x

(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil procedure. 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:

Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.

2. Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.”

The requirement of Sec.91(1) is that the election petition must be signed and verified prescribed in the C.P.C. for the verification of the pleadings. It will not to be correct to say that the Election Petition becomes a pleading thereby for any other purpose. It only mandates that the petition must be verified and the verification must be in the manner prescribed for verification of pleadings under the CPC.

3. That takes us to the next question as to how pleadings have to be verified under the CPC. Order 6 Rule 15 of the CPC prescribes the manner in which the pleadings are to be verified. I extract the same below. The emphasis must be on sub-rule (4). There is no contention that any other sub-rule has not been complied with.

“Verification of pleadings.—(1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.

(2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleadings, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true.

(3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was singed.

(4) The person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings.”

4. As one reads the rule, it is very evident that the verification is to conform to the requirement of rule 15(1) to (3). Rule 4 which has been introduced by the amendment in 2002 only imposes an additional duty on the person verifying the plaint to furnish an affidavit in support of the pleadings. Requirement of sub-rule (4), according to me, does not at all prescribe the manner in which the pleadings are to be verified. It only imposes an additional responsibility and duty on the person verifying the plaint to file an affidavit in support of the pleadings.

5. This is new requirement introduced in the CPC by the amendment brought about in 2002. The substantive provision is available in Sec.26 of the amended Code which reads as follows:

“26 Institution of suits. —(1) Every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed.

(2) In every plaint, facts shall be proved by affidavit.”

6. The court below considered the objections raised by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that Rule 15 (4) does not introduce any further requirement in verification of pleadings; but only imposes a responsibility on the person verifying the pleadings. After the pleadings are verified. He must file an affidavit in support of his pleadings. Notwithstanding the fact that order 6 Rule 15 has t