The court emphasized that a pen slip error in the date below the signature of the lawyer of the election petitioner did not constitute a substantial defect under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Upendra Upadhyay along with Shri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and; learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed against the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by S.D.M., Rajatalab, Varanasi, rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) in Election Petition being Case No. RST/03515/2021 (Computerized Case No. T202114700303515), Shailendra Pratap Singh vs Vijay Gupta.

3. Arising from the declaration of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Village Madhukar Shahpur, Block -Arazi Line, Tehsil -Raja Talab, District -Varanasi, private respondent has instituted the aforesaid election petition. In that, the present petitioner filed objection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The objection was three pronged, however, insofar as the present petition is concerned, it has been submitted, the fundamental objection raised by the petitioner that the election petition had not been duly signed by the private respondent, has not been dealt with.

4. In the above regard, it has been submitted, the election petitioner had signed on blank papers as is evident from the verification clause and the notary stamp affixed to the election petition. In the first place, no date has been affixed accompanying the signature to the election petitioner. Then, under Clause 10 of the election petition, it has been specifically stated, the same was typed on 17.5.2021. At the same time, the date 8.5.2021 appears below the signature of the lawyer of the election petitioner namely -Shri K.N. Pandey. Though the election petition was prepared on 17.5.2021, blank papers signed by the election petitioner and his lawyer were of the date 8.5.2021. That illegality is heightened by the fact that the pleadings were notarized on 8.6.2021 as is clearly borne out from the notary stamp affixed to the election petition.

5. Second, it has been submitted, the above objection goes to the root of the matter. It has not been dealt with by the Election Tribunal, inasmuch as, it has only recorded a conclusion that there was no deficiency in the election petition and that the date 8.5.2021 affixed below the signature of the lawyer of the election petitioner suffers from pen slip error.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He would submit, unnecessary and superfluous objection has been raised by the petitioner. Wholly on account of the mistake on part of the lawyer of the election petitioner -Shri K.N. Pandey in writing the date 8.6.2021 as 8.5.2021, due to pen slip error, an artificial defect has been claimed by the petitioner. Thus, it has been submitted, no doubt the election petition was signed and prepared by the election petitioner on 17.5.2021, it was thus signed by the lawyer on 8.6.2021 which came to be wrongly described as 8.5.2021. On that date itself, the petition was notarized. Therefore, there was no defect in the pleading, within the meaning of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

7. As to the consideration made by the Election Tribunal, reference has been made to the order wherein it has been first noted that there was no occasion on part of the lawyer of the election petitioner to sign the election petition on 8.5.2021 and thereafter conclusion has been recorded that the said date description appearing below the signature of the lawyer of the election petitioner, suffers from pen slip error.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it may be clearly noted that the date 8.5.2021 appearing below paragraph 10 of the pleadings made in the election petition is not below the signature of the election petitioner but below the signature of his lawyer. Then, there is no description disclosed in the election petition and there is no material to reach a conclusion that the