Verification in election petitions is part of pleadings and must comply with procedural rules, allowing for defects to be cured under the appropriate provisions of law.

ORDER

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner, for the purpose of challenging the order dated 27.07.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur District Jodhpur (hereinfater referred to as 'the Election Tribunal' or 'the Tribunal').

2. Before adverting to the legal issues involved, it would be apt to run through the factual canvas of the case.

3. The respondent-election petitioner filed an election petition under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994') read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1994'). It was inter alia averred in the election petition that petitioner-returned candidate and the respondent-election petitioner had submitted their nomination forms for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Belwa Khatriya. Apart from the petitioner and respondent, various other persons had submitted their nomination forms, out of which some withdrew their nomination forms whereas forms of some of them were rejected. Resultantly only two candidates, the petitioner and the respondent, remained in the contest for the post of Sarpanch.

4. The election was held on 17.01.2020 through electronic voting machine, and on the same day the votes were counted and the result was declared. The petitioner herein was declared a returned candidate.

5. The details of votes as given in the election petition are reproduced hereunder:-

6. The election petitioner-respondent challenged the petitioner's election on the sole ground that he did not fulfill the requisite age criteria provided in Section 19(a) of the Act of 1994, viz.-'minimum age of a candidate should be 21 years'.

7. The present petitioner (non-petitioner in the election petition) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and requested the Tribunal to reject the election petition, as the verification filed in the memo of election petition was not in accordance with Rule 83 of the Rules of 1994. The application so filed by the petitioner herein was rejected by the Tribunal vide its order dated 18.08.2020.

8. Against the order aforesaid, passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 11327/2020. During the course of arguments of the writ petition, the counsel for the respondent though conceded that the verification was defective, nevertheless submitted that such defect is a curable defect and in light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Moidutty Vs. P.T. Kunju Mohammed, reported in AIR 2000 SC 388, he be permitted to cure the same.

9. Acceding to the request so made, on 05.04.2021, petitioner's earlier writ petition came to be disposed of in the following terms:-

"On such categorical submission made by the learned Senior Advocate, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the respondents to cure the defect as per the statement made by Sr. Advocate Mr. Punia in the verification in question strictly in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today.

In case after curing of the defects, any defect in the petition as well as documents remains, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take it up the same before the learned court below."

10. The respondent-election petitioner, in turn, filed an application dated 09.04.2021 with the caption "Application under Order VI Rule 15 read with Section 151 CPC". While making reference of the order dated 05.04.2021, passed in earlier writ petition, the respondent submitted one verification for the election petition and another verification, verifying the documents and prayed that he be permitted to verify the docum