D.P. GUPTA, J.—The short question raised in this writ petition is as to whether the election petition filed by respondent Rameshwar before the Munsiff, Khetri should have been dismissed on account of the defect that the annexures to the said election petition were not verified in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule 2 of Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The respondent Rameshwar filed an election petition against the petitioner Sumer Singh under r. 78 of the Rules in the court of the Munsiff Khetri, challenging the election of the petitioner to the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Nagli Saledi Singh. There is no dispute that the election petition was properly verified but the only defect pointed out by the petitioner was that the annexures to the election petition were not verified by the respondent Rameshwar. Rule 80 of the Rules provides that the election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall be signed by the petitioner and verified by him in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 80 lays down that any schedule or annexure to the election petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified by him in the same manner as the election petition. Rule 83 of the Rules makes the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 with regard to civil suits, applicable to the hearing of the election petitions filed under the Act, subject to certain modifications specified in that rule.

2. A question relating to the defect in the verification of an election petition, presented under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 came up before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs. Roop Singh Rathore (1). It was urged that the defect in the verification was fatel, because of the non-compliance with the provisions of sec. 83(l)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in Murarka Radhey Shyams case (1) that a defect in the verification of election petition, which has to be made in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of the pleadings, is not fatal and that such a defect in the verification could be removed in accordance with the principles contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. It may be pointed out that there is no provision in the Rules to the effect that if the verification is absent or is defective, then the election petition shall be liable to be dismissed. Although, in sub-rule (2) of Rule 79 of the Rules, it has been provided that if the security for the costs of the opposite party is not deposited along with the election petition,then the said petition shall be deemed to have not been presented. In the absence of any similar provision, as it contained in sub-rule 2 of Rule 79, which makes the making of the deposit of the account of security for the costs of the opposite party along with the election petition, mandatory. It cannot be said that the election petition should be dismissed for want of verification or for any defect in the verification as there is no provision corresponding to the provision made for depositing security for costs. In my view, the defect in the verification, either in the election petition or in the schedules or annexures attached thereto may be allowed to be removed in the same manner as such defect could be removed in the case of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Munsiff is completely in accordance with law and there is no reason to interfere with the same. No other point has been argued before me.

4. In the [result, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs of the proceeding in this court.