The requirement of attestation provided for in Section 81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is mandatory.

JAGAT NARAYAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a Division bench of this Court consisting of Modi and Shinghal, JJ. It arises out of an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act 1951.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for disposing of it are these. Smt. Gayatri Devi respondent was elected to the House of the People at the third general elections held in the month of February 1962 from the Jaipur Parliamentary Constituency in Rajasthan. Her election was challenged by Sardar Mal appellant, who is an elector in the constituency, by an election petition on the ground of corrupt practices mentioned in para 4 thereof. Full particulars of the corrupt practices as required by Section 83 (i) (b) were given in three annexures to the petition marked A, B and C. An affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practices was also filed along with the petition as required under the proviso to Section 83 (2 ). The election petition, including the annexures and the accompanying affidavit, along with their copies, were presented before the Election Commission on 16-4-1962. The Commission referred the petition to an Election Tribunal for trial after causing a copy of it to be published in the Gazette.

( 3 ) ON 22-9-62 the respondent took an objection that the copies of the main petition and annexures A and B which were served on her did not bear the attestation by the petitioner as prescribed under Section 81 (3) and urged that the petition should be rejected on this ground tinder Section 90 (3 ). This objection was not taken by her in the written statement which was filed on 16-7-62.

( 4 ) THE above copies were filed before the Tribunal on the same day. They are substantially true copies of the petition, the annexures and the affidavit.

( 5 ) THE copy of the main petition consists of 5 sheets numbered serially from 1 to 5. There is no attestation on any part of it. Then follow copies of the three annexures A, B and C consisting of two one and three sheets respectively. The pages of these annexures are not numbered in continuation of the main petition or in continuation of one another. They are numbered independently. There is no attestation on any part of the copies of annexures A and B. At the foot of the last page of the copy of annexure C there is an attestation by the petitioner who has inscribed the words "true Copy" under his signatures. The copies of the annexures are followed by the copy of the affidavit which is inscribed with words "true Copy" under the signatures of the petitioner both on the first page and at the foot of the last page.

( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner was that Section 81 (3) was fully complied with, in as much as annexures being integral parts of the petition, an attestation on the foot of the last page of the copy of the last annexure was tantamount to attesting the whole of the petition including the annexures. In the alternative it was contended that Section 81 (3) was merely directory, that its purpose was to ensure that true copies of the petition were furnished, that this purpose was fully achieved and no prejudice was caused to the respondent as true copies were supplied, and that in this view of the matter there was substantial compliance of It. The petitioner filed an affidavit stating that the copy of the petition filed by him was a true copy and that he had attested it at the end of annexure C, under his signature, to be a true copy, as he had been advised by his counsel to regard the annexures as a part of the petition and he believed that to be the correct advice.

( 7 ) THE Tribunal held that the copy of the petition as well as copies of annexures A and B were not attested as required under Section 81 (3) and that the provision of it was mandatory. It accordingly dismissed the petition under Section 90 (3 ).

( 8 ) ON appeal, Shinghal, J. was of the opinion that the contentions of the petitioner were correct, Modi,