(1.) Election of Shri Surendra Goyal respondent No. 1 to the Jaitaran Vidhansabha constituency is challenged by the petitioner Dilip Choudhary who unsuccessfully contested the election. The election is challenged on several grounds mentioned in the petition and in response to the notice of the petition, it is submitted by respondent No. 1 by way of an application under Sections 82 and 83 read with S. 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) as also under Order 6, Rule 2, Rule 16 read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By this application several objections are taken to the maintainability of the petition at the initial stage on the grounds that (i) joinder of respondent No. 7 as party respondent is unnecessary and illegal and, therefore, violative of S. 82 of the Act and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone; (ii) that the petition is devoid of statement of material facts giving rise to cause of action and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine; (iii) the facts as stated in the petition do not give rise to any cause of action and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.; (iv) the pleadings are wholly incomplete and lack of material facts and particulars as are required to be given as per Order 6, Rules 2 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petition is liable to be rejected in limine.
(2.) The application was opposed by the petitioner and it was pointed out by extensive reference to the pleadings as they stand, that none of the objections as raised by respondent No. 1 can be accepted as sufficient pleadings with adequate statement of material facts and particulars giving rise to a cause of action has been stated. What is required is proof of these facts by leading cogent evidence to support and substantiate the pleadings already made and consequently the petition cannot be dismissed in limine.
(3.) With the assistance of Mr. J. P. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. M. Lodha, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, I have scrutinised the petition as also the application filed by the respondent No. 1 to examine the contentions raised by the rival parties. An adjudication of these preliminary objections expeditiously is one of the requirements of law as laid down by the Supreme Court of India.