DATTA RANGNATH BAHIRAT Vs. SIDHARTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent has filed the present Application seeking rejection of Election Petition under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (the Code) read with Sec. 86(1) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (RP Act). Respondent is the returned candidate having being elected from 209, Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency, Pune as the Member of Legislative Assembly. Petitioner also contested the said election as official candidate of the Indian National Congress. Respondent No.1 contested the election as the official candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Having lost the election of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for the constituency of 209, Shivajinagar, Pune, Petitioner has filed the present Election Petition seeking a declaration that the election of Respondent is void. Petitioner has not sought a declaration in respect of his own election. Accordingly, the other candidates, who contested the election, have not been impleaded as party Respondents to the Election Petition in accordance with provisions of Sec. 82 of the RP Act.

(2.) Respondent has filed Written Statement opposing the Election Petition. In addition to filing of Written Statement, Respondent has also filed the present Application seeking rejection of the Election Petition under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code read with Sec. 86(1) of the RP Act. Petitioner has filed Affidavit-in-Reply opposing the Application. Since the pleadings in the Application are complete, the same is taken up for hearing and disposal.

(3.) Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent would submit that the Election Petition does not make out even a single ground for challenging the election of Respondent as enumerated under Sec. 100 of the RP Act. That the Election Petition does not disclose cause of action and that therefore casually filed Election Petition deserves rejection by having recourse to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code read with Sec. 86(1) of the RP Act. He would submit that strict compliance with provisions of RP Act is necessary for maintaining an Election Petition. The Apex Court and this Court have repeatedly harped upon the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions of RP Act. That Election Petition being a statutory remedy, even a single omission to plead required fact/material would entail rejection/dismissal of the Election Petition. He would submit that in the following three judgments of this Court, the entire law on the subject has been discussed while holding that failure to plead the required facts/material would results in rejection/dismissal of Election Petition: