SAHODRABAI RAI versus RAM SINGH AHARWAR

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 02-02-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
SAHODRABAI RAI 
v. 
RAM SINGH AHARWAR 
February 2, 1968 
[M. liIDAYATULLAH, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, iJ.J 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, s. 83-Annexure to Election 
Petition-Necessity of service on respondent. 
The appellant filed an election petition with a pamphlet as annexure 
thereto. A translation in English of the pamphlet was incorporated in the 
body of the election petition, and it was stated in the petition that it formed 
part of the petition. The first respondent raised an objection that a copy 
of the pamphlet had not been annexed to the copy of the election petition 
served on him and therefore, the election petiiion was liable to be dismissed 
under s. 86 of the Representation of the People Act. 
The High Court 
acoepted the objection and dismissed the election petition. 
In appeal, 
this Court, 
HELD : The order of the High Court must be set aside. 
The words used in s. 81(3) are only "the election petition". There is 
no mention of any document accompanying the election petition. Since 
the election petition itself reproduced the whole of the pamphlet in a trans-
lation in English, it could be said that the averments with regard to the 
pamphlet were themselves a Part of the petition, and therefore the pam-
phlet was served upon the respondents although in a translation and not 
in original. [19 B-H] 
Even if this be not the case, it is quite clear that's. 83(2) 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, 
not in the election petition but in the accompanying schedules or annexures. 
Details of averments too compendious for being included in the election 
peti~ion may be set out in the schedules or annexures to the election 
petition. 
The law then requires that even though they are outside the 
election petition, they must be signed and verified. 
The annexures or 
schedules are then treated a'S integrated with the election petition and 
copies of them must be served on the Tespondents if the requirement re-
garding service of election petition is to be wholly complied with. But 
this does not apply to documents which are merely evidence in the case 
but for reasons of clarity and to lend force to the petition are not kept 
back but produced or filed with election petitions. They are in no s..,.. 
an integral part of the averments of the petition but are only evidence of 
those avebnents and in proof thereof. (19 H-20 DJ 
The pamphlet, therefore. must be treated as a document and not as 
a part of the election petition in so. far as averments are concerned. When 
the election petitioner said that it was to be treated as pan of her election 
petition she was merely indicating that it was not to be though that she had 
not produced the document in time. 
She was insisting upon the docu-
ment remaining with the petition so that it could be available whenever the 
question of the election petition or its contents arose. [20 D--EJ 
• 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1693 of 
1967. 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1968] 3 s.c.R. 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People 
A 
Act, 19 51 from the judgment and order dated September 21, 
1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 
10 of 1967. 
G. N. Dikshit and R. N. Dikshit, for the appellant. 
C. B. Agarwala, Uma Mehta, S. K. Bagga and Shureshta 
B 
Bagga, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatollah, 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 : 
The appellant was a candidate for election to the Sagar Lok 
Sabha Scheduled Castes cons!ituency No. 24. The election took 
place on February 20, 1967. There .were three other contesting 
candidates of whom the first respondent secured the largest num· 
ber of votes and was declared elected. The appellant secured the 
second largest number of votes, her votes being less by just under 
c 
D 
300 th.an 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 
E 
respondent

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.