RAM SUKH Vs. DINESH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vijay Bahuguna, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri L. K. Tiwari and Sri V. B. S. Negi, learned counsel for the objector-respondent and Sri. V. K. Bist, senior Advocate assisted by Sri. V. K. Kaparwan, learned counsel for the election petitioner on the application under Order 6, Rules 16 and 17 and Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code)read with Section 86 of the Representation of people Act 1951 (for short the Act ).

(2.) INITIALLY, the election petition was filed against the returned candidate and six others but the election petitioner has sought deletion of names of respondent Nos. 2 to 17, which was allowed vide Court order dated 18-6-2007.

(3.) THIS application has been moved by the respondent to dismiss the election petition at the threshold mainly on the ground that the election petition does not disclose any legal cause of action and the same does not comply with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. It has also been alleged that the election petition does not contain concise statement of material facts and does not furnish necessary particulars of material facts on which the allegations of corrupt practice have been made.