Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G Devarajegowda Vs Prajwal Revanna and Ors 3101202KA2020070220155144204COM324785 PDF
G Devarajegowda Vs Prajwal Revanna and Ors 3101202KA2020070220155144204COM324785 PDF
17. Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act specifically provides that, an election petition shall
be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings. Dealing with this
provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.M. SIDDESHWAR vs. PRASANNA KUMAR,
MANU/SC/0220/2013 : (2013) 4 SCC 776, in para 23 thereof, has held as under:
23. A reading of Section 83(1)(c) of the Act makes it clear that what is
required of an election petitioner is only that the verification should be
carried out in the manner prescribed in CPC. That Order 6 Rule 15 requires
an affidavit 'also' to be file does not mean that the verification of a plaint is
incomplete if an affidavit is not filed. The affidavit, in this context, is a
stand-alone document."
18. Thus the law on the point is clear that verification of the election petition in the
manner prescribed in Order VI Rule 15 is a sine qua non to maintain the election
petition, though non-filing of verifying affidavit does not render the verification
incomplete. Order VI Rule 15 CPC prescribes the manner in which the pleading is
required to be verified. The rule reads as under:-
"15. Verification of pleadings. - (1) Save as otherwise provided by any law
for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the
party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to
the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
(2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered
paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what
he verifies upon information received and believed to be true.
(3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state
the date on which and the place at which it was signed.
(4) The person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in
support of his pleadings."
(i). In the instant case, on perusal of the records, it is noticed that the petitioner has
filed a verifying affidavit along with the election petition (page No. 60) which reads
as under:
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
(1) I, G. Devarajegowda, son of late Gundegowda, aged 42 years, residing at
Kamasamudra Village, Mavinakere Post, Halekote Hobli, Holenarasipura
Taluk, Hassan District-573 211, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath
as follows:
This affidavit is seen to have been sworn on 05.07.2019 and was filed along with the
election petition on the date of presentation of the election petition i.e., on
05.07.2019. In addition to the verifying affidavit, the election petitioner has filed
another affidavit at page 64, in accordance with the proviso to section 83(1) of the
RP Act. In para 3 of the said affidavit, the declarant/election petitioner has sworn
thus:
"3) I have filed this affidavit under section 83(1) proviso as I have alleged
corrupt practice against respondent No. 1 in the election petition. I am filing
this affidavit in support of the allegations made by me regarding corrupt
practice and the particulars thereof."
(ii). In the subsequent paragraph No. 4, the election petitioner has stated that the
averments made by him in the election petition pertaining to the corrupt practices
under sections 123(1), 123(2), 123(3), 123(3A), 123(6), 123(7) and 123(8) of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 are true to the best of his knowledge.
(iii). In paragraph No. 5, he has sworn to the material particulars which he has
affirmed them to be true. Likewise, in the subsequent paragraphs, he has specified as
to which of those allegations are true to the best of his knowledge and which are
based on the information secured by him.
(iv). This affirmation, in my view, serves the purpose of Order VI Rule 15 CPC. The
verifying affidavit filed by the petitioner in terms of Order VI Rule 15 CPC and
another affidavit filed in terms of the proviso to section 83(1) of the Act read
together, in my view, are in substantial compliance of the requirements of section 83
of the RP Act. In this regard, it may be pertinent to refer to the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of H.D. REVANNA vs. G. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA & Others
MANU/SC/0877/1999 : AIR 1999 SC 768, in paragraph 14 whereof it is held as
under:
"Section 86 provides for dismissal of election petition in limine for non-
compliance of Sections 81, 82 and 117. Section 81 relates to presentation of
election petition. It is not the case of the appellant before us that the
requirements of Section 81 were not complied with though in the High court
a contention was urged that a true copy of the election petition was not
served on the appellant and thus the provisions of Section 81 were not
complied. Sections 82 and 117 are not relevant in this case. Significantly
Section 86 does not refer to Section 83 and non-compliance of Section 83
does not lead to dismissal under Section 86. This Court has laid down that