The burden of proof in election petitions alleging improper acceptance of nominations lies with the petitioner to show material effect on election results.

1. By this election petition under S.80/80 - A read with S.100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act), the petitioner has challenged the election of returned candidate i.e. respondent No. 1 who has been elected as member of the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly from Sarangarh Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste community on the ground of improper acceptance of nomination form of returned candidate respondent No. 1 by the Returning Officer which materially affected the election.

2. As per the election petition, respondent No. 1 was required to submit correct nomination form for election. Respondent No. 1 has submitted nomination form as required under S.33(1) of the Act and the forms prescribed under R.4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (for short the Rules) in Form 2 - A to Form 2 - E. Respondent No. 1 has submitted his nomination form as required under R.4 of the Rules in Form 2 - A but the form submitted by respondent No. 1 was not correct in all respects in Part III of the form which was required for respondent No. 1 to give consent for nomination. The form which respondent No. 1 has submitted contains the words in place of , but without correcting the form, respondent No. 1 has submitted defective form which was not proper. The petitioner has made objection before the Returning Officer, but the Returning Officer has illegally and improperly accepted the defective nomination form presented by respondent No. 1 which has substantially affected the election.

3. By filing application under O.7, R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) as I.A. No. 2, respondent No. 1 has objected the maintainability of the election petition on the ground that acceptance of nomination paper having mere clerical defect has not materially / substantially affected the result of election and therefore, the election petition for challenging the election is not maintainable.

4. By filing reply to I.A. No. 2, the petitioner has specifically objected that by accepting improper and defective nomination paper, result of election has been substantially and material affected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No. 1, perused the election petition and the alleged copy of nomination form of respondent No. 1 filed on behalf of the petitioner.

6. In support of I.A. No. 2, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that respondent No. 1 has filed nomination form in printed format containing clerical mistake of one word as . The defect is not of substantial nature and does not materially or substantially affects the election. The petitioner has failed to show another meaning of the word contrary to the meaning of word . Respondent No. 1 has filed duly filled nomination form containing detailed information as required under S.33(1) of the Act. Only on account of misprint of one word it is not sufficient to declare the election of returned candidate as illegal and the election petition is not maintainable.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed I.A. No. 2 filed for dismissal of the election petition under O.7, R.11 of the Code and argued that respondent No. 1, returned candidate of the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly Elections, was required to submit correct nomination form in all respects, but respondent No. 1 has not submitted correct nomination form. Defect in the nomination form is of substantial nature which has materially affected the election of the petitioner. The petitioner has objected the same at the time of acceptance of nomination form, but the Returning