Verification of pleadings differentiated from affidavit filed in support of pleadings

G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar, (2013) 4 SCC 776
 Election 
 Election Petition/Trial 
 Maintainability - Requirements of: (a) verification of every election petition as required by S. 83(1)(c), RP Act, 1951, and
(b) affidavit supporting allegation of corrupt practice as required per S. 83(1) proviso, RP Act, 1951 in election petitions
alleging corrupt practice - Manner and mode in which to be satisfied in (1) Case 1: Election petition not containing
allegation of corrupt practice, and (2) Case 2: Election petition containing allegation of corrupt practice - Affidavit, if any,
required in Case 1 - Filing of affidavit in support of election petition in terms of Or. 6 R. 15(4) CPC in addition to affidavit
required under S. 83(1) proviso, RP Act, 1951 - If required in Case 2 - Composite affidavit when sufficient to meet
requirements of RP Act - In Case 1, held, all that is required is verification of pleadings in election petition in manner

prescribed by CPC i.e. vide Or. 6 Rr. 15(1), (2) & (3) CPC, since that is all that RP Act requires for election petitions not
containing any allegation of corrupt practice - No affidavit of any sort is required in Case 1, since there is no such
requirement in RP Act - Hence there is no requirement of filing an affidavit in terms of Or. 6 R. 15(4) CPC in Case 1 - In
Case 2, held, both (i) verification of pleadings in election petition in manner prescribed by CPC i.e. Or. 6 Rr. 15(1), (2) &
(3) CPC, and (ii) filing of affidavit under S. 83(1) proviso, RP Act, 1951 which substantially complies with Form 25
prescribed in R. 94-A of 1961 Rules, are required - If there is already one affidavit (composite or otherwise) which
accompanies election petition and supports allegation of corrupt practice in Case 2, there is no need for a second or
additional affidavit in terms of Or. 6 R. 15(4) CPC - Furthermore, a composite affidavit which both supports: (a) pleadings
in election petition, and (b) allegation of corrupt practice, will satisfy the requirements of RP Act - Requirements of Or. 6
Rr. 15(4) CPC cannot be read into RP Act, 1951 - P.A. Mohammed Riyas, (2012) 5 SCC 511, overruled on this point, 
(2013) 4 SCC 776-A 
 Practice and Procedure 
 Affidavit/Oath 
 Verification of pleadings differentiated from affidavit filed in support of pleadings, 
 Or. 6 R. 15(4) and S. 26(2) - Affidavit required to be filed in support of pleadings - Held, is not a part of verification of
pleadings, but a stand-alone document, (2013) 4 SCC 776-C 
 Election 
 Election Petition/Trial 
 Maintainability - Non-compliance with requirements of provisions of S. 83 of RP Act, 1951 - Summary dismissal of
election petition under S. 86(1) of RP Act in case of - Permissibility - Relevant principles of law, summarised - Affidavit
filed in terms of S. 83(1) proviso - Defect in - Effect of - Although non-compliance with provisions of S. 83 is a curable
defect, yet there must be substantial compliance therewith - If there is total and complete non-compliance with provisions
of S. 83, petition cannot be described as an election petition and may be dismissed at threshold - In present case,
affidavit filed in terms of S. 83(1) proviso, though not in prescribed format [i.e. Form 25], was in substantial compliance
with said format - Defect also in verification of affidavit - Said defects, held, curable - Opportunity ought to be given to
election petitioner to cure the defects - Petition cannot be summarily dismissed in terms S. 86(1) of RP Act - Merely
because said affidavit was defective, did not mean that petition filed was not an election petition under RP Act - Affidavit
filed was not an integral part of the election petition, (2013) 4 SCC 776-D 
 Election 
 Election Petition/Trial 
 Petition challenging election of returned candidate - Duty of court while dealing with - Court must make a fine balance
between purity of election process and avoidance of an election petition as being a source of annoyance to returned
candidate and his constituents, (2013) 4 SCC 776-E 

 Or. 6 R. 16 - Striking out objectionable paragraphs in election petition - Held, is a matter for trial - No reason for
Supreme Court to take a view different from that taken by High Court, (2013) 4 SCC 776-F 

Print Page