9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Dismissal of Election Petition on preliminary issue.
Details of the Judgment: 1. Allegations in Election Petition: Appellant alleged that the first respondent and his family were not residents of the constituency, engaged in character assassination, violated rules, exceeded expenditure limit, used government servants for canvassing, and highlighted discrepancies in the voters' list. Appellant sought to void the election of the first respondent and declare himself validly elected. 2. Counter-Affidavit by First Respondent: First respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying the allegations, without claiming vagueness or prejudice in the petition. Some allegations were challenged for not disclosing a cause of action. 3. High Court Decision: High Court allowed the first respondent's application to strike out specific paragraphs of the election petition and rejected the entire petition. Three points were considered, leading to the dismissal of the Election Petition. 4. Challenged Judgment: The judgment was challenged for confusion in applying provisions of the Representation of the People Act and Civil Procedure Code. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the averments in the petition as true for determining cause of action. 5. Legal Analysis: Order VI, Rule 16 allows striking out pleadings for specific reasons, while Order VII, Rule 11 mandates rejection of a plaint if it lacks a cause of action. The Court found that the election petition did disclose a cause of action and could not be rejected without a trial. 6. Conclusion: The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Election Petition to file, and dismissed the first respondent's application. The matter was remanded for fresh disposal, emphasizing the need for expeditious consideration on merits without awarding costs.
|
