SENTHILBALAJI V. Vs. A.P. GEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of an Election Petition filed by the first respondent under Sec. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the RP Act of 1951). The Election Petition was filed by the first respondent in the Madras High Court questioning the validity of the election of 134 -Aravakurichi Assembly Constituency (for short, "the said Constituency"). Polling was held on 19/11/2016 and the result was declared on 22/11/2016. The present appellant is the 5th respondent in the Election Petition filed by the first respondent. The present appellant was declared as elected. He was polled 88,068 votes. The 6th respondent in the Election Petition (the 6th respondent in this appeal) was polled 64,407 votes. Only 82 voters voted for the first respondent (Election Petitioner).

(2.) The first ground of challenge in the Election Petition is the improper acceptance of nomination papers of the appellant and the 6th respondent. The second ground of challenge is that the election is void as the appellant has indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation is that the appellants agent and some other persons with the consent of the appellant have indulged in corrupt practices.

(3.) An application was made by the present appellant inter alia pointing out that no cause of action has been set out in the Election Petition in support of the ground of corrupt practice. It was submitted by the appellant that the Election Petition filed by the first respondent does not disclose any material particulars and material facts about the allegation of corrupt practice. It was contended that the allegations made in paragraphs 3 to 9 are vague and therefore, the said paragraphs deserve to be struck out by exercising the power under Rule 16 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC). The second prayer was for the rejection of the Election Petition on the ground that the same does not disclose the cause of action. A similar application was also filed by the 6th respondent. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge of the Madras High Court rejected the applications. While doing so, he observed that the first respondent had forwarded copies of a compact disc, photographs, etc. to the Returning Officer (5th respondent). The learned Judge directed the first respondent to file all relevant documents such as emails, photographs, video footage, etc. which were submitted to the Returning Officer within a period of 15 days from the order. The appellant has challenged the said judgment and order dtd. 23/2/2018 by way of this Appeal.