Abhay M. Naik, J.

1. This order disposes of I.A. No. 17535/09.

2. Following main objections have been raised in the said I.A.:

1. Election petition was presented by the counsel for the petitioner. In the absence of personal presentation by the Election Petitioner, there being violation of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity), Election Petition is liable to dismissal.

2. Copy of election petition accompanied by annexures was not attested by the petitioner under his own signatures as true copy, which is violative of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act.

3. Though, Annexure P/28 is described in paragraph 30 of the election petition, the same is not annexed to the election petition. Annexure P/28 is a receipt pertaining to security deposit. In the absence of this document, election petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

4. Allegations about corrupt practices are made against Bhagirath Prasad, an independent candidate, who has not been impleaded despite mandatory provision contained in Section 82 of the Act. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of non-joinder of necessary party.

5. No affidavit has been submitted in support of the election petition stating thereby specifically on oath that which contents are true on the basis of personal knowledge and which are the contents based on information.

6. There is no verification of the original annexures which makes the election petition liable to be dismissed.

3. Shri Manish Vashishtha, Advocate, for the election petitioner and Shri Rameshwar Bhargava, Advocate, for the respondent No. 5 made their respective submissions.

4. It has been contended by Shri Bhargava, learned Advocate, that by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 81 of the Act, an election petition is to be necessarily presented by the election petitioner, in person. Reliance for this purpose is placed on 1978 JLJ 850 (Ramanlal Premi v. Shivpratap Singh and Anr). 2008 (III) MPWN 92 (Urmila Devi v. Returning Officer (Panchayat) and Ors. and 2007 Utt 69 (Rajeev Gupta v. Union of India and Ors.). It has been stated in the affidavit dated 25.03.2010 that the election petition was submitted by Shri J.P. Saxena, Advocate, for the election petitioner.

5. I perused the original election petition which contains, an endorsement to the following effect:

Presented by Dr. Bhagirath Prasad petitioner, who is identified by Shri J.P. Saxena, Advocate at 4.30 PM on 29.6.2009

This endorsement has not been disputed at all by the respondent No. 5. This being so, it is observed in the light of the endorsement that the election petition was presented personally by the election petitioner.

6. Further, submission is that Annexure P/28 is security deposit receipt, which has not been annexed to the election petition.

There is no specific provision providing thereby that the receipt of security deposit is to be necessarily annexed to the election petition. It has been stated in paragraph 30 of the election petition that the security deposit of Rs. 2,000/- has been deposited vide receipt No. 97 Book No. 6617 dated 29th June, 2006. This was found correct as revealed in the endorsement made on the election petition itself. Learned Additional Registrar of the High Court of M.P. Jabalpur has clearly endorsed that the election petition was properly drawn-up, apparently within time and properly stamped. It is further mentioned in the said endorsement that the election petition is accompanied with spare number of copies, list of documents, registered address, PF and security amount of Rs. 2,000/-.

7. It is further submitted that the election petition is dated 27.6.2009, whereas, security amount was deposited on 29.6.2009. Therefore, security amount paid on 29.6.2009 cannot be legally considered and the election petition may be dismissed on this count. Sub-section (1) of Section 117 of the said Act reads as under:

117. Security for costs - (1) At the time of p