V. Dhanapalan, J.

This Application has been filed by the applicant/substituted election petitioner to substitute Document No.8, FIR, with the certified copy and, thereafter, mark the same through P.W.9.

2. According to the applicant, in paragraph 8 of the amended Election Petition, he already stated how the first respondent had indulged in bribing the electors by distribution of money and he also gave details of persons who had acted as the agents of the first respondent, the date of bribery and the name of the person (complainant) who lodged the FIR; at the time of filing of the Election Petition, xerox copies of the FIR had also been filed; the first respondent, who is the sole contesting respondent has not questioned the FIR; during his evidence as P.W.1, the marking of Document No.8 through him was objected on the ground that it was a xerox copy and, hence, he has now obtained a certified copy of the very same document. His further case is that on 04.02.2013, when the certified copy of the document, which was sought to be marked through P.W.9 by substituting the xerox copy, was objected by the first respondent, it was felt necessary that an application should be taken