The requirement of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires an election petition to be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents, is mandatory and the failure to include copies of the annexures in the copies of the petition served on the respondent is a fatal defect.

1. In this petition of unsuccessful candidate Panna Lal Syngal for declaring void the election of Mukhtiar Singh respondent (the candidate returned to the Lok Sabha from the Rohtak Parliamentary Constituency in the general election held in March, 1971, on the allegation of commission of certain corrupt practices), following two preliminary objections were raised in the respondents written statement:-

-

1. That the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to supply to the respondent copies of the annexures to the petition. The defect is a defect of presentation of the petition within the meaning of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act), and also as required by the Rules framed by this Court in this behalf; and

2. That the petition merits dismissal on the ground that no material particulars have been given regarding the corrupt practices alleged in the petition.

2. By my order dated May 27, 1971, I permitted the Petitioner to file better particulars of the alleged corrupt practices within four weeks from that day after serving an advance copy thereof on the counsel for the respondent, who might file his further written statement in respect of the better particulars within two weeks of the receipt of the advance copy. The petitioner did not avail of the opportunity allowed to him. The time allowed for the purpose expired on June 25, 1971, when the Court was closed for summer vacation. The Court reopened on July 12, 1971. Neither any statement of better particulars nor any application for extension of time was filed by the petitioner on the reopening day. Even when the case came up for hearing before Mahajan, J., on July 16, 1971, neither any statement was filed, nor any prayer foe extension of time was made. The learned Judge adjourned the case for hearing of arguments by me on the preliminary issue arising out of the first preliminary objection raised by the respondent as counsel for the parties represented before his Lordship that argument on that issue had already been partly heard by me. I do not want to say anything about the correctness of the said representation made by counsel except this that there had been no hearing of the case before me since after the framing of the preliminary issue on May 27, 1971. The order of Mahajan, J., was brought to my notice on July 19, 1971, and I directed the case to be fixed for hearing on July 21, 1971. On that day, Mr. N. C. Jain, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made in somewhat half-hearted oral prayer for adjournment of the case on payment of costs to the other side to enable his client to collect the material for filing better particulars and for filing the same. Mr. Jain submitted that the petitioner had not been able to do the needful so far, as he has been busy in organizing certain demonstrations in Delhi, and could not find time to collect the requisite information which had to be incorporated in the statement of better particulars. This in my opinion is no valid ground for the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to do the needful. Section 86(5) of the Act authorizes this Court to allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amplified for ensuring a fair and effective trail of the petition. Sub-section (6) of Section 86 stated that the trail of an election petition shall so far as practicable, consistently with the interest of justice, be continued form day to day until its conclusion, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trail beyond the following day to be necessary. Sub-section (7) enjoins a duty on this Court to try an election petition as expeditiously possible.

3. It was at the request of the counsel for the petitioner that four weeks was allowed to him for filing better particulars as it was represented that he would need time to collect the necessary information and to prepare the better statement. Since four weeks ended