Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, R.S. BACHAWAT AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
Smt. Sahodrabai Rai, Appellant
Versus
Ram Singh Aharwar and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No 1693 of 1967,
D/- 2-2-1968.
Advocates appeared
M/s. G. N. Dikshit and R. N. Dikshit, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate (Miss Uma Mehta, Mr. S. K Bagga and Mrs. Shureshta Bagga, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 1.
In a civil suit, the plaintiff is required to file only one copy of the document and not as many copies as there are defendants in the case. It would therefore follow that a copy of the document is not expected to be delivered with the copy of the plaint to the answering defendants when summons is served on them. In the schedules to the Code of Civil Procedure we have got Appendix B which prescribes the forms for summons to the defendants. There is only one form of summons in Appendix B (Form No. 4) in which the copy of the negotiable instrument is to accompany the copy of the plaint. That is so, because of the special law applying to the negotiable instruments and the time limit within which pleas to that document have to be raised and this is only in summary suits. No other form makes any mention of any document accompanying the summons with the copy of the plaint.
It is clear that the documents which are filed with the plaint have to be accompanied by one copy of those documents. This is because the copy is compared with the original and the copy is endorsed by the clerk of Court and the document is sometimes returned to the party to be produced into Court later. The copy takes the place of the document concerned and is not to be sent out to the parties with the plaint. [Para 10
(2) Practice (Civil) - petitioner viewing a legal point of law in a particular manner - is nor decisive - the decision has to be according to the law on the subject.
The petitioner in an election petition stated that a particular annexure should be treated as a part of the election petition. It was contended that it should be treated as a part of the petition because the petitioner has so stated.
Held: The matter is not to be resolved on how the election petitioner viewed the matter but from the point of view of the requirement of the law on the subject. [Para 8
(3) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Ss. 81 (3) & 83 (2) - documents only proof of the allegations in the election petition - copy need not be served on the respondents - what annexures need be signed, verified and served with the petition.
The election petitioner gave an English transation of a pamphlet in the election-petition and on the basis of it made allegations of corrupt practice in the petition. The pamphlet was attached to the petition and it was averred that it may be treated as a part of the petition. The copies of the pamphlet were not served on the respondents nor were submitted with the election petition. The High Court dismissed the election petition on this ground.
Held: Section 81 (3) of the Act provides that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as “there are respondents mentioned in the petition and that every such copy shall be an authenticated true copy'. The words used here are only 'the election petition'. There is no mention of any document accompanying the election petition. If the matter stood with only this sub-section there would be no doubt that what was intended to be served is only a copy of the election petition proper. Assistance is however taken from the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 83 which provides that any schedule or any annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. It is contended that since the pamphlet was an annexure to the petition it was not only necessary to sign and verify it, but that it should have been treated as a part of the election petition itself and a copy served upon the respondents. In this way, non compliance with the provisions of sections 86 (1) is made out.
This is too strict a reading of the provisions. Section 81 (3) speaks only of the election petition since the election petition itself reproduced the whole of the pamphlet in a translation in English it could be said that the pamphlet was served upon the respondents although in a translation and not in original.
Even if this be not the case, sub-section (2) of section 83 has reference not to a document which is produced as evidence of the averments of the election petition but to averments of the election petition which are put in not in the election petition but in the accompanying schedules or annexures. The law then requires that even though they are outside the election petition, they must be signed and verified, but such annexures or schedules are then treated as integrated with the election petition and copies of them must be served on the respondents if the requirement regarding service of the election petition is to be wholly complied with. But this does not apply to documents which are merely evidence in the case, but which for reasons of clarity and to lend force to the petition are not kept back but produced or filed with the election petitions. [Para 11
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
In civil suits, only one copy of each document filed with the plaint needs to be served on the defendant, as the copies in the schedules are for comparison, endorsement, and possible later production in court (!) .
The purpose of filing copies of documents with the plaint is to enable comparison with the original and to facilitate endorsement and potential production in court, not to serve multiple copies to each defendant (!) .
In election law, the law requires that the election petition be accompanied by as many true copies as there are respondents, each attested by the petitioner, but it does not specify that annexures or schedules must be served as part of the petition (!) (!) .
Annexures or schedules to an election petition, which contain allegations or evidence, must be signed and verified in the same manner as the election petition itself, and if they are integral to the petition, they should be served accordingly (!) (!) .
Documents that serve merely as evidence and are produced to support allegations are not considered part of the election petition itself; thus, they are not required to be served as part of the petition unless they are incorporated as part of the pleadings (!) .
The law emphasizes that the nature of the document—whether it is an integral part of the pleading or merely evidence—determines the necessity of service and verification requirements (!) .
The legal requirement for service and verification is primarily concerned with the election petition and its annexures or schedules that contain material allegations, not with evidence documents produced during the trial (!) .
The law's provisions regarding service, signing, and verification aim to ensure that pleadings are complete and properly authenticated, but strict adherence depends on whether the document is considered part of the pleadings or evidence (!) .
In the context of election petitions, if a document is incorporated as part of the pleadings (such as a translated pamphlet that is reproduced in the petition), it is treated as part of the petition and must be served accordingly (!) (!) .
Conversely, documents produced solely as evidence, even if attached to the petition, are not automatically considered part of the pleadings and do not necessarily require service unless they are explicitly incorporated into the pleadings (!) .
The interpretation of what constitutes a part of the election petition versus evidence influences procedural compliance, particularly regarding service and verification, and ultimately affects the validity of the election petition (!) .
The legal provisions and procedural rules should be interpreted based on their plain language and purpose, rather than solely on the petitioner's or party’s subjective view of the document's role (!) .
The law is designed to ensure transparency and fairness in election disputes by requiring proper service, signing, and verification of pleadings and annexures, with distinctions made between pleadings and evidence documents (!) .
When procedural requirements are not strictly followed but the documents are considered part of the pleadings, courts may have grounds to dismiss or uphold petitions based on the nature of the documents and compliance with law (!) .
Ultimately, the court's decision in such matters hinges on whether the procedural requirements regarding service and verification are met, considering the legal character of the documents involved (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these points.
Judgement
HIDAYATULLAH, J. :- This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, dated September 21, 1967, dismissing the Election petition filed by the appellant on the preliminary ground that a proper copy of the election petition was not served upon the answering parties. The facts of the case are as follows:
2. The appellant was a candidate for election to the Sagar Lok Sabha Scheduled Castes constituency No. 24. The election took place an February 20, 1967. There were three other contesting candidates of whom the first respondent secured the largest number of votes and was declared elected. The appellant secured the second largest number of votes , her votes being less by just under 300 than the successful candidate s votes. An election petition was thereafter filed by the appellant on April 5, 1967. In this election petition the appellant challenged the election of the first respondent on four grounds. They were (a) wrongful acceptance of his nomination paper, (b) corrupt practice inasmuch as he, appealed to religion through a pamphlet marked Annexure A (c) undue influence, and (d) breaches of the Act and Rules. The pamphlet to which reference is made was styled Bhayankar Vajraghat and was published by Sarvardaliya Goraksha Mahabhiyan Samiti, Deori Kalan Branch. It charged the party of the appellant namely the Congress with encouraging cow-slaughter and offending the Hindu Sentiment. Details were given in it of the number of animals slaughtered every day in Madhya Pradesh and elsewhere and blamed the Congress with being a party to the practice. In the body of the election petition a translation in English of the Hindi pamphlet was incorporated. The original pamphlet was attached to the election petition and was marked Annexure A . The election petitioner proceeded to say in her petition "it forms part of the petition"
3. When Parties appeared the first respondent filed his written statement in great detail. He dealt with this pamphlet and answered the allegations of the election petitioner in relation thereto paragraph by paragraph. As a result of these pleas a number of issues were raised on July 18, 1967. No issue was raised in regard to the service of a defective copy of the election petition upon the respondents in general and the first respondent in particular. However, on August 3, 1967, a special objection was made by the first respondent claiming that the copy of the pamphlet had not been annexed to the copy of the election petition served upon him and therefore the election petition was liable to be dismissed in accordance with the provisions of S. 86 of the Representation of the People Act. A detailed reply to this objection was given by the election petitioner. She stated that this was an after-thought inasmuch as the translation of the pamphlet was incorporated in the election petition and the allegations regarding the pamphlet had been answered in detail by the answering respondent. The Court thereupon framed an additional issue on August 4, 1967. The issue ran as follows:
"Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for contravention of S. 81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as copy of Annexure A to the petition was not given along with the petition for being served on the respondents"
4. Parties first died a number of affidavits pro and con. Later the Court ordered attendance of the deponents for cross-examination. In this way the appellant and her counsel who had filed affidavits earlier were examined. Their case was that the copies of the election petition had been properly put together including in each copy an original pamphlet for service on the respondents. On the other side the first respondent and two-others filed affidavits stating that when the copy of the election petition was received it was not accompanied by the pamphlet. In their examination in Court all maintained the same position and were cross-examined. The learned Judge tryi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
