Bessy Daniel vs Ushakumari and Biju. S.

V. Chitambaresh, J.—The objection raised by the petitioner as regards the maintainability of the election petition was over-ruled by the court below by the order impugned. The objections are :

i) Sufficient number of copies of the election petition had not been filed as contemplated u/s 89(2) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act.

ii) The verification by the election petitioner at the foot of the election petition does not conform to Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The lower court records were called for and perused by me in the presence of Counsel. The same reflected that sufficient number of copies had been presented by the election petitioner for service on the respondents therein within the period of limitation. Additional copies happened to be placed only when the notice sent from court was returned unserved. A copy attested by the lawyer additionally placed was despatched by the court for the second time. A mistake committed by Court shall not harm the litigant as has been held in Sumangala vs. Usha (2007 (3) KLT 902). The election petition cannot therefore be dismissed for non compliance of Section 89 (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act under the circumstances.

It is submitted at the bar that the election petitioner has filed an application for amendment of the election petition. The verification part of the election petition is sought to be amended by recourse to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such power is available to the election court as has been in Abdulla vs. Jose (2012 1 KLT 22). It is for the court below to consider whether the amendment should be allowed or not. No grounds exist to reject the election petition at the threshold as warranted u/s 93(1) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. The order of the court below over-ruling the objection of the petitioner who is the respondent in the election petition is well founded.

The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.