The legal point established is that certain defects in the election petition, such as non-attestation/verification and non-impleadment of necessary parties, may not necessarily lead to the dismissal of the petition, as per the interpretations of the relevant legal provisions and previous judgments.

ORDER

1. The application No.46369/2019 has been filed by the respondent No.6 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Sections 80, 81, 82, 83, 86 & 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1951') and Rule 94- A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rule of 1961').

2. Following are the objections which have been raised by the respondent No.6 in the application under consideration:-

A. Copy of the election petition received by the respondent No.6 is not duly signed by the petitioner which is a mandatory requirement as per Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951.

B. The petitioner has not made proper party as respondent in the Election Petition and the direction has been sought against the Election Commission of Rajasthan to hold fresh election and as such the Election Commission of Rajasthan has not been made party respondent.

C. The petitioner has not mentioned the cause of action in his election petition and the same is mandatory as per Section 33(1A), 36, 100(1)(b) and 123(4) of the Act of 1950. The sub-clause (a) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of plaint if it does not disclose the cause of action.

D. The election petition has not been filed by the petitioner verifying the pleadings according to sub-clause (1) of Order 6 Rule 15 CPC as nowhere at the foot of the election petition, the petitioner has filed an affidavit about verification of the pleadings.

E. The allegation of corrupt practice if made against the Returned Candidate, then it is mandatory to furnish an extra affidavit along with the prescribed form under Rule 94-A of the Rules of 1961 and a proforma of affidavit has been given in the Rules of 1961, known as Form No.25 and the same is not filed, as such, the election petition is required to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Azhar Hussain V. Rajiv Gandhi reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1253 and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs. Shri Rajiv Gandhi reported in AIR 1987 SC 1577.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has filed reply to the application filed by the respondent No.6 and made following averments:-

(i) The petitioner while filing the election petition has strictly followed the provisions contained under Chapter-II of the Act of 1951 and the provisions envisaged under Section 80 & 81(3) of the Act of 1951, have been meticulously followed.

(ii) The petitioner has made full compliance of the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1951 and necessary parties have been included in the title of the Election Petition and there is no requirement of inclusion of Election Commission of Rajasthan as necessary party.

(iii) The Election Petition filed by the petitioner gives the material facts and also provides cause of action and definite allegations have been levelled against the Returning Candidate of corrupt practices as defined under Section 123(4) of the Act of 1951.

(iv) The petitioner has duly verified the pleadings and each page of the election petition is duly signed by him and there is no violation of Order 6 Rule 15(1) CPC.

(v) The petitioner has produced the proper affidavits, as required under the law and to prove the corrupt practices, the affidavits of witnesses will be filed during the proceedings and in support of affidavit, ocular testimony of the witnesses, will also be led during pendency of the Election Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the Election Commission of India nor the Election Commission of Rajasthan is necessary party and as such he refers to the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Election Commission of India Vs. Rajabhau (Parag) Prakash Waje and Ors. (Election Petition No.22/2019).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has disclosed all the material facts which are sufficient to bring an action against t