ANIL DHIMAN Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, prayer has been made for the rejection of the Election Petition, inter alia, on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action and also lacks the material facts.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants/respondents has taken the Court through the provisions of Ss. 83 1 (a) and (b) and Ss. 83 and 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and submitted that the petition is liable to be rejected in terms of the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 467, as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Azhar Hussain versus Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 315 and D. Ramachandran Vs. R.V. Janakiraman and Others, (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 267. No other point was urged.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the non-applicant/petitioner submitted that the present application is not maintainable, for the reason that the Election Petition does discloses a cause of action and it cannot be said that the Election Petition is hit by the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petition is not filed on alleging corrupt practices. After taking the Court through the contents of the Election Petition, he submitted that the same meets the parameters of Sec. 83 of the Representation of the People Act, in terms whereof, the grievance of the petitioner stands clearly spelled out and the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants have no bearing, as far as this particular case is concerned and rather to the contrary, they are in favour of the non-applicant/petitioner.