B.R. NEELAKANTAPPA Vs. G.H. SRINIVASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has secured 415 votes in the 126-Tarikere Legislative Assembly Constituency which consists of 1,59,863 electors of which 1,24,727 votes were polled is before this Court. He is assailing the declaration of the first respondent as the elected candidate on securing 35,817 votes in the result declared on 08.05.2013, on the ground that he has indulged in corrupt practice by using the photograph of the petitioner also in the pamphlets printed and distributed while soliciting votes for the first respondent. The acceptance of nomination of the second respondent who ultimately secured 34,918 votes in the same election is also assailed on the ground that particulars with regard to his bank details had not been disclosed. The respondents in addition to filing their objection statement have also filed the applications seeking that certain paragraphs of the petition be struck off and the petition be rejected in limine.

(2.) The first respondent has therefore filed I.A.No.1/2013 under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code ('CPC' for short) seeking rejection of plaint, while a similar application is filed by the second respondent also in I.A.No.4/2013. The first respondent has filed another application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC in I.A.No.1/2014 seeking to strike out paragraph Nos.10,14,15,19,21,23 and 30 and consequently dismiss the petition. It is also contended that the petition is not maintainable for want of proper verification by way of appropriate affidavit required both under the provision of CPC and Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 ('RP Act' for short). It is also contended that the material particulars are not forthcoming and the petition does not disclose the cause of action. The petitioner has filed his objection statement to the application contending that the particulars pleaded and the verifying affidavit filed is in order and that the applications are liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the first respondent in support of his contentions has relied on the following decisions;