RAGHURAMIREDDI S Vs. T CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications in Recrimination Petition in Election Petition No.1 /95 are filed seeking to strike down the pleadings contained in para Nos.5 to 57 of the Recrimination petition under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC read with Sections 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and seeking dismissal of the above Recrimination Petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Sections 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act as the said. . Recrimination petition fails to disclose any cause of action for trying any triable issue.

(2.) For the purpose of appreciating the proposition which falls for consideration before this Court, few facts are necessary to be stated which are as under: The Recrimination Petition is filed by one Sri Tavva Chandrasekhar Reddy who is the 9th respondent in the Election Petition No.1./95, Elections to 156-Mydukur Assembly Constituency were held on 1-12-1994. Sri D.L. Ravindra Reddy, candidate sponsored by the Congress-I party was declared to be elected as he secured 47,046 votes against Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy, a candidate sponsored by Telugu Desam Party who secured 47,018 votes. Against the said election of Sri D.L. Ravindra Reddy, Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy has filed the election petition No.1/95 on various counts. The recrimination Petitioner is the 9th respondent in the election petition. The elected candidate Sri D.L. Ravindra Reddy has also filed a recrimination petition against the election petitioner and also applications under Sections 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act (for short "the Act") seeking to delete certain paragraphs and also seeking to dismiss the election petition on the ground of not disclosing a triable issue warranting to go into trial.

(3.) Those applications filed by the returned candidate Sri D.L. Rayindra Reddy were considered after hearing elaborate arguments on behalf of the parties. Since both the Counsel appearing on behalf of the election petitioner and the returned candidate had submitted agreed issues, on which basis this Court framed issues paving way for commencement of trial from 8-4-1996.