( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal by the returned candidate is directed against an order passed on 18-8-1986 by the learned single Judge of this Court in a pending Election Petition No. 23 of 1985.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 challenged the election of the appellant as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh from No. 16, Lashkar East constituency in the election held in 1985 on the ground of corrupt practice. After service of notice of the election petition, the appellant filed his return and, inter alia, raised an objection about the maintainability of the petition on the ground that "the affidavit is an integeral part of the petition and a true copy thereof duly attested under the signatures of the petitioner has to be served on the respondents. But the petitioner has not served a true copy-of the affidavit on the Answering Respondent. As such the petition is liable to be dismissed summarily under S. 81 read with S. 86 of the Act. " On the basis of this objection, following issue was framed, tried and decided as a preliminary issue against the appellant by the impugned order of the learned single Judge :-" (I ). Whether the affidavit contemplated in the proviso to S. 83 (1) of the Act is integral part of the Election Petition ? If so, whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for the alleged non-compliance of the provisions of Ss. 81 (3) and 83 (1) of the Act ?" ( 3 ) IN view of a full Bench decision of this Court in Laxmi Narain v. Ramratan. 1986 Jab LJ 238, it was not disputed that a letters patent appeal against an interlocutory order, amounting to judgement within the meaning of Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent, passed in an election petition by a single Judge is competent. It was, however, submitted by Shri P. L. Dubey the learned counsel for the election petitioner did not amount to 'judgement' within the meaning of Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent and therefore the appeal was incompetent. Several authorities were cited in support of the contention, but we do not propose to decide the preliminary objection about maintainability of the appeal, or to deal with various cases cited on either side and proceed to decide the appeal on merits.

( 4 ) IT was not disputed that the election petition was accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form and that the requisite number of copies of the petition along with affidavit were filed with the election petition. It was also not in dispute that the affidavit was sworn in before a competent person and that the copies of affidavit filed with the copies of petition were attested by the election petitioner under her own signatures to be true copies of the affidavit. The copy of the affidavit supplied to the appellant was complete in all respect, it omitted to reproduce the designation of the person, who administered oath to the election-petitioner as also the endorsement made by him in the original affidavit at the time of administering the oath. It was, therefore, contended that the appellant was not supplied with a true copy of the affidavit and as it formed integral part of the petition, the election petition was liable to be dismissed in view of the mandatory provisions of S. 81 (3), read with S. 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (for short, the "act" ).

( 5 ) SHRI R. K. Shinde, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned single Judge came to a right conclusion that the affidavit formed integral part of the petition, but erred in not holding that the endorsements made by the officer administering oath were intrinsic part of the affidavit and, therefore, omission to mention them in the copies furnished in accordance with S. 81 (3) of the Act was fatal to the maintainability of the petition. According to him, an affidavit sworn before an unauthorised officer would be no affidavit in the eye of law. Consequently the omission to give the said particulars in the copy of the affidavit supplied to the appel