Hon'ble TATIA, J.-The respondent sought dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short "the Act of 1951") on the ground of non-supply of list of documents filed along with the present election petition, which is being decided by this order.

2. The respondent submitted this application under Section 86(1) of the Act of 1951 on the ground that though the copy of the election petition was served on the respondent containing pages from 1 to 26 with index, but does not contain the list of documents filed by the petitioner along with the election petition under rule 12 of the Rules in regard to the election petition under the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and Order 14 Rule 4 CPC. This fact that copy of the list of documents has not been supplied to the respondent came to the knowledge of the respondent only when this Court on 19.11.2009, after giving reference of this list of document, allowed the petitioners application for summoning of the documents. In view of the above, this petition is liable to be dismissed as the election petitioner does not comply with the provisions of Sees. 81 or 82 or 117 of the Act of 1951.

3. The election petitioner submitted reply to the application and admitted that copy of the list of documents referred above, has not been served and supplied to the respondent and stated that it was not required to be supplied to the respondent as the list of document submitted by the petitioner at the time of presentation of the election petition, is neither annexure nor schedule to the election petition. It is also submitted that above list was produced in the Court when the election petition was presented before this Court and not "along with the election petition", therefore, was not required to be served upon the respondent along with the copy of the election petition. The petitioner denied that list of document forms part of the election petition. It is also submitted that the respondent has filed this application to delay the proceedings of the election petition and the election petitioner seriously questioned the bona fide of the respondent in moving this application at this belated stage with the plea that the fact of submitting list of document by the petitioner in this election petitioner came to the knowledge of the respondent only from the order of this Court 19.11.2009 wherein there is a reference of this list.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per sub-rule (2) of Section 83 of the Act of 1951, any schedule or annexure to the petitioner is also required to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. Sub-rule (3) of Section 81 of the Act of 1951 also provides that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. The learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Mulayam Singh Yadav vs. Dharam Pal Yadav (2001) 7 SCC 98).

5. In another case, M. Karunanidhi vs. H.V. Handa & Ors. & connected writ petitions (AIR 1983 SC 558), Hon'ble the Supreme Court dismissed the election petition as copy of photograph was not supplied as required under Section 81 (3) of the Act of 1951.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the petitioner's contention that list of documents referred above is not part of the election petition, is factually wrong, as the list of documents was tagged in the election petition itself and when the election petition was submitted in the High Court, office also reported in the election petition that list of documents also have been filed in the election petition and while admitting the election petition, by order dated 25.2.2009, this Court specifically mentioned tha