Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
. (d) Where deposit of security amount was not made along with election petition and the S.D.O. took cognizance ofit, directed recount [ I, S. 122 e ' PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADH1" 1993 (PA)175 J dispute. The Election Tribunal erred in dismissing the election petition by holding that there is non-compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules. The impugned order passed by the Election Tlibunal set aside. Natihulal v. Shakuntalabai, 2011(2) MPW 424 = 2011(2) MPHT 153. [5] Neither the requisite copies of the Election Petition were filed -nor they are signed. Non-Compliance of Rule 3 by the Election Petitioner. Election petition dismissed. Rakesh v. Returning OfflCer Pallchayat Nirvachan, 2012(4) MPW 458 = 2012(5) MPHT 1~4_ Rr. 3 & 8: [1]Failure to file copiesofelectionpetition- Petition to be dismissed.-[l] Where in compliance with the provisions of rule 3, election petition did not accompany as many copies of the same as there were respondents, the requirement being mandatory. such a petition was liable to be dismissed under the provisions ofrule 8.ShivdhariLahhesar v.Jaduman Bishwanath, 1999 (1) MPLJ 291. [2] See also: Udaysingh v. Himmatsingh, 1999 (1) JLJ 200. [3]Petition should be attested by the election petitioner. In its absence the petition is liable to be dismissed. Attestation by advocatewouldnot save the petition. Omprahash Soni v. Ashokhumar, AlR 1996 MP 43. [4] Attested copies of documents supplied to respondents not signed by petitioner- Petition liable to be dismissed. Defect cannot be cured after. perjod oflilllitation, cAmolsinghv. HamirSing"" 19.96(1) MPWN 122. ' .,. - . -[51-ElectIon petition not rejected.-Petitioner herself was present at the time of presentation of the election petition before the specified officer and her thumb impression was taken on the right hand side corner of the said order sheet. Merelybecause endorsement made in the order sheet is that the petition was presented by her Counsel, it cannot be construed that the election petitioner was not presented at the time of presentation of the election petition and that she has not presented the election petition. In fact, the election petitioner was present before the specified officer along-withber CollnsHwhenthe election petition was presented. That being so, compliance of Rule 3(1] of the Rules of 1995 having been made and onthis ground the election petition can not be rejected. KaUashi v. Bharos~ 2006(3) MPW 477 = 2006(3) MPHT 404. Rule 4: Where petitioner claims that he or any other person be declared elected in place of the returned candidate, he has to join only the contesting candidates as party and riot those whose nomination has been rejected or who Wittidrew his nomination. Harishonkar ~Su'Yavanshi v_-State of M.P., -1998 (2) Vidl:\i Bhaswar 225. Rule 5: Pleadings not verified.-Rule 5 prescribes that the elec- tion petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the CPC, for the verillcation of pleadings. In the present case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory requirement as prescribed under Rule 5(c) of the Rules,