Orissa High Court
(An Application Under Sections 8 vs Bhakta Charan Das … Opposite Party on 11 March, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
I.A. No.13 of 2025
(ELPET No.03 of 2024)
(An application under Sections 81,83,86 and 87 of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order VI Rule
16 & Order-VII Rule 11 read with Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C.,
1908)
Manorama Mohanty ... Petitioner
(Respondent in the
Election Petition)
-versus-
Bhakta Charan Das ... Opposite Party
(Petitioner in
the Election Petition)
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.G.K.Agarwal,
Sr. Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party
: Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra
Sr.Advocate.
Mr. T.K.Biswal,
Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
11.03.2025.
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 1 of 27
Sashikanta Mishra,J. This application has been filed by the sole
Respondent of the above Election Petition under Order
VI Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VII Rule
14 of the C.P.C. and Sections 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 and the rules
framed there under.
2. The Election Petition has been filed with two fold
prayer;
(1) To declare the election of sole
Respondent-Manorama Mohanty
from 81 Narla Assembly
Constituency as void and to set
aside the same, and
(2) To declare that the affidavit filed
by the sole Respondent-Manorama
Mohanty in Form-26 does not
disclose complete, correct and true
information regarding her
educational qualification as
mentioned under Col.11 of the
said affidavit.
3. Notice of the Election Petition being served upon
the sole Respondent, she has entered appearance and
filed her written statement. Additionally, she has filed
the instant application to which the Election Petitioner
has filed his objection.
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 2 of 27
4. The present application has been filed with
prayer to dismiss the Election Petition in limine under
Section 86 of the Act on the following grounds;
(i) The copy of election petition served on the
Petitioner/Respondent though official mail of this
Hon’ble Court is not the exact and true copy of the
original Election Petition filed in Court.
(ii) The Election Petition has not been signed and
verified by the election petitioner as required u/s
83(1)(c) of the Act read with Order VI Rule 15 C.P.C.
The affidavit appended to the election petition has
not been signed and sworn either before the Notary
Public or before the Oath Commissioner, as
required under the law.
(iii) There is complete lack of oath/affirmation of the
Election Petitioner as required under Sec. 83(1)(c) of
the R.P. Act, 1951 read with Order VI Rule 15 C.P.C
and Chapter VI Rule 16 of High Court of Orissa
Rules, 1948 for verification of the pleadings. Thus,
the Election Petition does not confirm to the
requirement of Sub-section (3) of Sec. 81 of the R.P.
Act, 1951 and is to be dismissed u/s 86 of the Act
in limine.
(iv) The election petition has not been signed and
verified by the election petitioner in the manner laid
down in the C.P.C. for the verification of pleadings.
The election petition has not been presented along
with the Affidavit as required under Sec. 83(1)(c) of
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 3 of 27
the Act read with Order-VI Rule-15 of the C.P.C.
and Chapter VI Rule 16 of High Court of Orissa
Rules, 1948 and as such, the election petition is
liable to be dismissed in limine.
(v) The Affidavit appended to the election petition
served on the Respondent is without oath and
affirmation. The election petition having been filed
without the affidavit as required under law is no
Petition under the eye of law, and as such the
same is liable to be dismissed under section 86 of
the R.P. Act, 1951.
(vi) On a plain reading of the election petition it
appears that the election petitioner sues upon
several documents and/or relies upon several
documents purported to be in his possession or
power in support of his claim /allegation in the
election petition. The election petitioner has neither
produced such documents in court, when the
election petition was presented nor has delivered
copies of such documents to the Respondent,
therefore the election petition is incomplete and the
same is liable to be dismissed at the threshold on
this score alone.
(vii) The documents referred to in the pleadings of
the Election Petition on the basis of which
averments have been made in the Election Petition
have not been annexed along with the election
petition nor copies of such documents have been
provided to the Respondent, nor contents of such
documents have been reproduced in the election
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 4 of 27
petition so that the Respondent shall not be
prejudiced to set up his defence. Therefore, the
election petition is incomplete and is liable to be
dismissed at the very threshold under Sec. 86 for
non-compliance of Sec. 81 and Sec. 83 of the R.P.
Act, 1951.
(viii) The election petitioner has absolutely no cause
of action to file the above election petition. The
election petition has been filed purely on false,
frivolous and imaginary grounds and on bald
allegations without any supporting materials and
documents. Hence, the same are liable to be
dismissed in limine.
(ix) The election petition is liable to be dismissed as
none of the ingredients of Sections 100, 101 and
123 of the R.P. Act, 1951 have been satisfied in the
present case.
In addition, objections have been raised in
respect of each of the paragraphs of the Election
Petition, the particulars of which would be stated in
detail hereinafter.
5. Heard Mr. G.K.Agarwal, learned Senior counsel
with S. Srivastava for the sole Respondent/Petitioner
in the I.A. and Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, learned Senior
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 5 of 27
counsel with Mr. T.K.Biswal, learned counsel, for the
Election Petitioner/Opp.Party in the I.A.
6. Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel, would
argue that the copy of the Election Petition served on
the sole respondent through official mail of this Court
is not the exact true copy of the original Election
Petition filed in the Court.
In response, Mr.B.Mishra, learned Senior
counsel, would submit that the Respondent
intentionally avoided to receive notice which prompted
this Court to direct the Registry to serve notice on the
Respondent by e-mail and through Court process. The
copy of the Election Petition as filed before this Court
was sent by e-mail and therefore, the allegation that it
is not the exact true copy is baseless.
7. It is settled law that the purpose of serving a
true copy of the Election Petition and affidavit is to
enable the respondent to understand the charges and
prepare an effective defence. In the case of
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 6 of 27
T.M.Jacob v. C. Poulose and others;1, the Supreme
Court held as follows;
“35. The object of serving a “true copy”
of an election petition and the affidavit
filed in support of the allegations of
corrupt practice on the respondent in
the election petition is to enable the
respondent to understand the charge
against him so that he can effectively
meet the same in the written statement
and prepare his defence. The
requirement is, thus, of substance and
not of form.
36. The expression “copy” in Section
81(3) of the Act, in our opinion, means a
copy which is substantially so and
which does not contain any material or
substantial variation of a vital nature
as could possibly mislead a reasonable
person to understand and meet the
charges/allegations made against him
in the election petition. Indeed a copy
which differs in material particulars
from the original cannot be treated as a
true copy of the original within the
meaning of Section 81(3) of the Act and
the vital defect cannot be permitted to
be cured after the expiry of the period of
limitation.”
8. Coming to the case at hand, this Court finds
that the Respondent has not been able to demonstrate
as to how the copy of the Election Petition served upon
1
(1999) 4 SCC 274
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 7 of 27
her was different from the one filed in the Court or that
she was not in a position to understand the averments
made therein or was misled in any manner. The
objection raised in this regard is therefore, untenable.
9. Mr.Agarwal, learned Senior counsel, next argued
that the Election Petition has not been signed and
verified by the Election Petitioner as required under
Section 83(1)(c) of the Act read with Order VI Rule 15
of C.P.C. The affidavit appended to the Election
Petition has not been signed and sworn before the
Oath Commissioner.
Mr. B.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, would
submit that the Election Petition has been signed and
verified in consonance with the provisions of Order VI
Rule 15. Further, the Election Petitioner has himself
attested and signed on each page. He has also sworn
affidavit before the Oath Commissioner of this Court.
10. This Court has perused the Election Petition and
finds that each of the pages thereof have been attested
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 8 of 27
and signed by the Election Petitioner himself. The
Election Petition is appended with verification followed
by affidavit as prescribed. It cannot therefore, be held
that the Election Petition was not properly verified or
there was no affidavit. Even otherwise, it has been held
that the defect in such respect, if any, is curable and
that it is sufficient if there is substantial compliance.
In this context, reference may be had to the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Thangjam
Arunkumar vs. Yumkham Erabot Singh and
others;2. Moreover, what exactly is the defect has not
been specified save and except for pleading that the
Election Petition was not verified in terms of Section
83(1)(c) of the Act and Order VI Rule 15 of C.P.C. The
objection raised by the Respondent on that count is
therefore not tenable.
11. Mr. Agarwal would then argue that the Election
Petition also contains the list of documents relied
2
(2023) 11 S.C.R. 392
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 9 of 27
upon, but the said documents have not been filed
along with the Election Petition.
In reply, Mr. B. Mishra would submit that the
Election Petitioner has relied upon Form 2(B) and
Form-26 of the Respondent. Additionally, the Election
Petitioner has relied upon two documents received
under the R.T.I. Act. Since the documents are public in
nature and have already been referred to, the same can
always be filed at the time of trial.
12. Perusal of the Election Petition reveals that a list
of documents relied upon has been appended thereto.
The documents are; copy of Form-B of the Respondent,
copy of Form 26 of the Respondent, copy of
information received under R.T.I. Act dated 19.5.2022
from Panchayat Samiti Office, Narla, copy of the
information No.103 dated 20.6.2024 received from
Headmistress, Government Girls’ High School,
Bhawanipatna and any other document to be filed at
the time of hearing. In so far as the documents at Sl.
Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the averments relating
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 10 of 27
thereto have been made under Paragraph-7 (ii). In
other words, the contents of the documents have been
pleaded and relied upon in support of the contentions
put forth by the Election Petitioner. While the contents
or the information contained in the documents are
integral to the Election Petition, the document itself
may not be an integral part. To amplify, had the
Election Petitioner not related the contents of the
documents in question and merely referred to the
document, in such case it would have formed integral
part of the petition but in the instant case, as already
stated, the contents of the document or the
information received through it have been stated in
detail. Therefore, mere non-production of the
document by itself, according to the considered view of
this Court, cannot be fatal to the election petition. In
the case of F.A. Sapa and others vs. Singora and
others;3, the Supreme Court held as follows;
“The next grievance of the appellants is that they were not served
with a true copy of the election petition inasmuch as the
annexures served therewith were not true copies of the original.
3
(1991)3 SCC 375
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 11 of 27
Section 83(2) lays down that any schedule or annexure to the
petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same
manner as a petition. The grievance under this head is not that
there is no compliance with section 83(2) but that the annexure
which was an integral part of the election petition was not a true
copy of the original, inasmuch as certain pages found in the
annexure produced with the petition were missing from the
copies supplied to the returned candidates/appellants. It was
strongly submitted that an annexure which is an integral part of
the election petition is an important and vital document and
failure to supply a true copy thereof clearly violates the
mandatory requirement of section 81(3) and renders the petition
liable to be dismissed by virtue of section 86(1) of the R.P. Act.
As held in Sahodrabai’ case (supra) where details of averments
too compendious for inclusion in the petition are included in the
schedule or annexure, the schedule or annexure in that case must
be treated as integrated with the election petition and must
comply with the requirement of Section 83(2) and section 81(3)
failing which the provision of section 86(1) would stand
attracted. But this does not apply to a schedule or annexure which
produces a document as evidence in support of the allegation in
the election petition. Such a schedule or annexure cannot be
described as integrated with the election petition and defect in
verification thereof would not prove fatal. In Sasidharan’s case
(supra) the same principle has been reiterated. In that case the
election petitioner referred to a video cassette showing progress
of the constituency which also contained speeches of government
servants. A copy of the document was not served on the opposite
party along with the election petition. It was held that the said
document formed part of the election petition and failure to
supply a copy thereof along with the election petition was fatal. If
a document does not form an integral part of the election petition
but is merely referred to in the petition of filed in the proceedings
as evidence of any fact, failure to supply a copy-thereof will not
prove fatal. Therefore, the maintainability of an election petition,
in the context of the point on hand will depend on whether the
schedule or annexure to the petition constitutes an integral part of
the election petition or not. If it constitutes an integral part it must
satisfy the requirements of section 81(3) and failure in that behalf
would be fatal. But if it does not constitute an integral part of the
election petition, a copy thereof need not be served along with the
petition to the opposite party. Much would, therefore, depend on
whether the schedule or annexure was an integral part of the
election petition or not; if the former, failure to serve it along
with the petition to the returned candidate would be fatal but not
so in the latter case. The appellants contend that it was an integral
part of the election petition but the High Court did not go into this
question; it solely relied on the Stamp Reporter’s report. It then
emphasised that no defect was noticed by the Stamp Reporter in
the following words:
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 12 of 27
“The stamp reporter, in the instant case, found the copies in order
and made his endorsement accordingly. I do not find any reason
not to rely upon the endorsement of the stamp reporter.”
Therefore, the criticism that the High Court which was duty
bound to apply its mind and decide the question judicially had
abdicated in favour of the Stamp Reporter’s decision extracted
earlier. We are afraid this criticism is not wholly correct because
the High Court has also observed that `no specific omission or
deviation in the copy from the original was pointed out’ nor was it
shown that the respondents were misled on that account. We have
also closely scrutinised the application made by the returned
candidate in the High Court and except for a general allegation
that the annexure served along with the petition was not a true
copy, no specific allegation is found. However, in the special
leave petition filed in this Court question No.(vi) states that
certain pages were missing from the copy of the annexure served
on the returned candidate. Then in paragraph 11 it is averred that
pages 15 and 16 of Annexure II were missing. Since no such
specific allegation was made in the application filed by the
returned candidate, the High Court had no occasion to go into this
allegation and to ascertain if the missing pages contained material
forming an integral part of the election petition. We would not
like to embark upon an inquiry in this behalf and would leave it
to the appellants to agitate the question before the High Court.
We would request the High Court to examine the contention on
merits, if raised, and answer the same in accordance with law.
For the above reasons therefore, this Court is
unable to accept the contentions advanced by
Mr. Agarwal that the documents relied upon not
having been filed along with the Election Petition or
served upon the Respondent cannot be treated as fatal
to the petition. It is for the Election Petitioner to
produce the documents at the time of trial to
substantiate the contentions advanced relating thereto.
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 13 of 27
13. Having dealt with the preliminary grounds urged
by the sole Respondent, this Court would now deal
with the specific contentions raised by her in respect of
the individual paragraphs of the Election Petition.
(i) It is stated that under paragraphs 1 to 6 of the
Election Petition that the pleadings are in respect of
the area and schedule of election, names of contesting
candidates, their symbols, party affiliation etc. These
do not disclose any cause of action. Mr.Agarwal would
argue in this context that unless the pleadings disclose
a cause of action, the Election Petition cannot be
maintained.
Mr. B. Mishra, on the other hand, would submit
that the said paragraphs of the Election Petition
cannot be read in isolation and moreove,r the
necessary introductory facts have only been pleaded
in the said paragraphs.
After going through the averments made in
paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Election Petition, this Court
finds that only the relevant information with regard to
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 14 of 27
the election, contesting candidates and their party
affiliation etc. have been indicated. As submitted by
learned Senior counsel Mr.B.Mishra, these are formal
in nature and necessary to introduce the other
grounds on which the Election Petition is based and
therefore, cannot be read in isolation. The argument
of Mr. Agarwal in this regard is therefore, untenable.
(ii) It is stated in paragraph-7 (i) and (ii) that the
Election Petitioner has relied upon an affidavit filed in
a previous Panchayat Election, which has no relevance
to the election in question. Further, it is not stated how
the declaration in Form 26 is false and the same has
materially affected the result of the election. According
to Mr. Agarwal, the Election Petitioner alleges that the
age declared by the Respondent in the affidavit in Form
26 is false inasmuch as she declared to have
completed Secondary Education in 2021, but the
School records and information received under R.T.I.
Act reveal that she repeatedly failed in H.S.C.
Examinations from1988 to 1992. According to Mr.
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 15 of 27
Agarwal, it settled law that the School Admission
Register is not conclusive proof of date of birth. He
relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Mayadhar Nayak vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Jajpur
and others; 1982 SCC Online Ori-1. In the instant
case, the Respondent completed her secondary
education from Bihar Board of Open Schooling and
Examination in 2020-21 and correctly stated her date
of birth as 11.6.1978. The allegations made by the
Election Petitioner are therefore, completely false and
baseless.
Mr. B. Mishra, on the other hand, would argue
that the very fact that the Respondent has, in the I.A.
filed by her, denied the allegation relating to her age as
made in the Election Petition, by itself proves that it is
a triable issue, which requires adjudication. Therefore,
according to Mr.Mishra, the pleadings cannot be
struck out nor the case can be rejected at the
threshold.
After considering the grounds raised in the I.A.
and the contentions advanced, this Court is inclined to
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 16 of 27
accept the argument of Mr. Mishra that the Election
Petitioner has made certain allegations in her Election
Petition regarding false declaration of the date of birth
of the respondent. Said allegation appears to be based
upon the School Admission Register and other
documents obtained under the R.T.I. Act. Having
pleaded so, it is for the Election Petitioner to prove the
same by adducing evidence. Moreover, applicability or
otherwise of the judgment cited can only be considered
after the evidence is laid before this Court in the
context of the facts pleaded. It cannot therefore, be
said that the pleadings in question do not disclose any
cause of action or that the pleadings being
unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious are liable to be
struck out.
(iii) It is stated that the pleadings under paragraphs-
8(i) to 8(v) do not disclose any cause of action. They
only outline the general facts relating to the election
such as constituency, number of candidates,
nomination process etc. According to the Respondent,
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 17 of 27
these pleadings do not disclose any action of action.
Mr. Agarwal would argue that these pleadings do not
disclose any material fact nor any cause of action for
which the Election Petition must be held to be in non-
compliance of Sections 81 and 83 of the Act. In this
regard, Mr.Agarwal has relied upon the Judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu and
others vs. Debi Ghosal and others,4 and in the case
of Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi;5.
Mr.B.Mishra, on the other hand, would argue
that the pleadings under Paragraphs-8(i) to (v) of the
Election Petition, being formal in nature cannot be
read in isolation, but have to be read along with other
paragraphs of the petition. It is not the requirement of
law that each paragraph of the Election Petition must
independently disclose a cause of action.
After going through the relevant sub-paragraphs
of Paragraph-8 of the Election Petition and on
consideration of rival contentions put forth, this Court
is inclined to accept the argument of Mr.B.Bishra that
4
(1982) 1 SCC 691
5
1986 (supp) SCC 315
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 18 of 27
each paragraph of the Election Petition does not
necessarily have to disclose a cause of action
independently. Rather, the Election Petition has to be
read holistically. Moreover, the paragraphs referred to
by the Respondent are formal in nature and are merely
reproduction of the basic facts necessary to introduce
the allegations made in the subsequent paragraphs
and therefore, cannot be read in isolation.
(iv) It is stated that in Paragraph-9 of the Election
Petition that the Election Petitioner has simply quoted
the provision of Section 33-A of the Act which by itself
does not give rise to any cause of action. Mr. Agarwal
would argue in this context that the election of a
returned candidate can be questioned only by pleading
material facts and particulars as per Section 83(1) of
the R.P. Act. As such, the pleadings under Paragraph-9
are unnecessary, baseless and vague.
Mr. B. Mishra, on the other hand, would argue
that the Election Petitioner has referred to the relevant
statutory provision in order to justify the other
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 19 of 27
pleadings containing specific allegations and therefore,
cannot be treated as unnecessary.
As already stated, it not necessary nor the
requirement of law that each paragraph of the Election
Petition must necessarily reveal a cause of action
independently. Reading of the Paragraph-9 reveals that
the Petitioner has extracted the provision under
Section 33-A of the Act and has subsequently tried to
plead as to how the said provision was violated by the
returned candidate. Therefore, the pleading cannot be
treated as unnecessary so as to be struck out.
(v) In paragraph-10 of the Election Petition, it has
been alleged that the Respondent in her affidavit in
Form 26 has given a false declaration about her
educational qualification deliberately. According to the
Respondent, the Election Petitioner has not pleaded as
to how the Respondent deliberately did so, what are
the false declarations and the source of his
information. In this context, Mr. Agarwal would argue
that unless material facts and particulars are pleaded,
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 20 of 27
such bald allegations cannot be the basis for making a
fishing and roving inquiry by the Court.
Mr. B.Mishra, on the other hand, would argue
that the very fact that the Respondent states that the
allegations are false, implies that he denies the same.
This, in turn, implies that the issues raised are triable
and therefore, the pleadings definitely reveal a cause of
action.
Reference to Paragraph-10 reveals that
according to the Petitioner, the Respondent in her
affidavit dated 23.4.2024, submitted in Form 26,
deliberately provided false declaration regarding her
educational qualification making her nomination liable
for rejection. It is true that further particulars of the
alleged false declaration in Form 26 have not been
given but, as stated earlier, the
Election Petition has to be read as a whole and no
paragraph can be read in isolation. If such exercise is
undertaken, it will reveal that the election of
Respondent has been questioned mainly on the ground
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 21 of 27
that she had falsely declared her educational
qualification in the affidavit in Form 26. In fact, the
details of the alleged false declaration have been
highlighted under Pararaph-7(ii). The entire Election
Petition is silent as regards any other allegations.
Therefore, the allegations made under Paragraph-10
has to be read in the context of the only allegation
made by the Election Petitioner i.e. regarding the so
called false declaration regarding educational
qualification made by the Respondent in the affidavit
in Form 26. The contentions advanced on behalf of the
respondent cannot therefore, be accepted.
(vi) With regard to Paragraph-11 of the Election
Petition, it is stated that the nomination of the
Respondent has been questioned with reference to
judgment of the Supreme Court but without specifying
which judgment. According to Mr. Agarwal, unless
there are clear and concise pleadings, the Court cannot
indulge in any fishing or roving inquiry, which would
be an abuse of the process of the Court.
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 22 of 27
Mr.B.Mishra, on the other hand, would argue
that the Election Petitioner has merely stated that as
per the law laid down by the Supreme Court the
nomination for declaration regarding educational
qualification by the Respondent is liable to be rejected.
The relevant case laws shall be cited at the time of
trial.
It is trite law that only facts and not law are
required to be pleaded. Paragraph-11 undoubtedly
refers to “decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court” without
giving the particulars of the said decision. But the
same is of no consequence because the allegation is
with regard to false declaration in the affidavit. It is for
the Election Petitioner to substantiate his allegation by
referring to the relevant case laws at the time of trial.
Only because the relevant case law has not been cited,
cannot be a ground to throw away the Election Petition
at the threshold.
(vii) With regard to the averments in paragraph-12, it
is stated that the material facts such as how the
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 23 of 27
nomination was invalid, how the returning Officer
improperly accepted it or how the votes cast in favour
of the Respondent are void, have not been pleaded.
Further, how the result of the election was materially
affected have also not been pleaded. Mr.Agarwal would
argue that it is necessary for the Election Petitioner to
plead all material facts and to show as to how the
result of the election was affected because of improper
acceptance of the nomination. Mr. Agarwal has relied
upon the judgment of the Mairembam Prithviraj @
Prithiviraj Singh vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra
Singh; 2017(2) SCC 487.
Mr.B.Mishra, on the other hand, would argue
that the Election Petitioner has specifically referred to
the facts/pleadings in the preceding paragraphs of the
Election Petition and has tried to make a summary
thereof in Paragraph-12 and nothing more.
(viii) Reading of Paragraph-12 of the Election Petition
clearly reveals that the said paragraph starts with
reference to the facts/pleadings in the preceding
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 24 of 27
paragraphs with regard to the submission of the
alleged false affidavit by the Respondent giving false
information regarding her educational qualification
and her age. Thus, nothing new has been pleaded in
the said paragraph. As argued by Mr. Mishra, the
pleadings under Paragraph-12 are in the form of
reiteration of the earlier paragraphs and as stated
earlier, are to be read conjointly with the other
paragraphs. The objection raised in this regard by the
Respondent is therefore, not tenable.
(ix) As regards, Paragraphs-13 to 15 of the Election
Petitioner, it stated that the same do not reveal any
cause of action for which the same need to be struck
out. Mr.Agarwal would submit that unless the
averments disclose a valid cause of action, the Election
Petition cannot be held to be maintainable in law.
Mr. B. Mishra, on the other hand, would argue
that in the paragraphs in question, the Election
Petitioner has referred to the jurisdiction of this Court,
limitation period for filing of the Election Petition and
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 25 of 27
the security deposit made, which is necessary to
constitute the Election Petition.
Reading of Paragraphs-13 to 15 of the Election
Petition would reveal that the Election Petitioner has
not made any specific allegations thereunder, but has
asserted about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court,
the fact that the Election Petition was filed within time
and regarding deposit of Rs.2,000/- as security for cost
as required under Section 117 of the Act. It is evident
that these are facts concomitant to maintain an
Election Petition as prescribed under the Act and an
assertion that the same is a valid Election Petition. As
such, it does not necessarily have to disclose any
cause of action, which has already been disclosed in
the previous paragraphs.
14. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts,
the position of law and the contentions advanced by
the parties, this Court is of the view that no ground is
made out by the Respondent for this Court to exercise
jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C.to strike
ELEPT No. 03 of 2024 Page 26 of 27
out any of the pleadings or under Order VII Rule 11 of
C.P.C. to reject the petition at the threshold or to
dismiss the Election Petition under Section 83 of the
Act. On the contrary, it is held that the Election
Petition as laid does disclose a valid cause of action
and involves triable issues for which it would not be
proper to throw away the Election Petition at the
threshold without taking it to trial.
15. In the result, the I.A. is held to be sans any
merit and is therefore, dismissed.
…………………………….
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Reason: authentication
Location: High Court Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 12-Mar-2025 12:11:16
ELEPT 03 of 2024 Page 27 of 27