Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to four applications filed by returned candidates in election petitions challenging their election to the Lok Sabha from various constituencies in Mumbai in the 2009 general elections. The returned candidates invoked Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking dismissal of the election petitions in limine for non-disclosure of cause of action, or alternatively, striking out certain paragraphs under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. The petitioners in the election petitions were voters who alleged corrupt practices by the returned candidates. The court examined the pleadings and found that the election petitions did not disclose any cause of action as they failed to plead material facts constituting corrupt practices as required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court held that the petitions were liable to be dismissed in limine under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court also noted that the alternative prayer to strike out paragraphs was not necessary as the entire petitions were dismissed. The applications were allowed, and the election petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Dismissal of Plaint - Election Petition - Non-Disclosure of Cause of Action - The court examined whether the election petitions challenging Lok Sabha elections disclosed a cause of action. Held that the petitions failed to plead material facts constituting corrupt practices as required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and were liable to be dismissed in limine under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Paras 1-4).
B) Civil Procedure - Order VI Rule 16 CPC - Striking Out Pleadings - Election Petition - The court considered the alternative prayer to strike out paragraphs under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. Held that since the petitions did not disclose a cause of action, the entire petitions were liable to be dismissed rather than merely striking out paragraphs (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election petitions disclose a cause of action and whether the pleadings contain material facts as required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether the petitions are liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or paragraphs struck off under Order VI Rule 16 CPC.
Final Decision
The court allowed the applications and dismissed the election petitions in limine under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Order VI Rule 16 CPC
- Section 83 Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- Cause of action
- Material facts
- Corrupt practice
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (08) 54
APPLICATION NO.7 OF 2010 IN ELECTION PETITION NO.11 OF 2009, APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2010 IN ELECTION PETITION NO.13 OF 2009, APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2010 IN ELECTION PETITION NO.14 OF 2009, APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2010 IN ELECTION PETITION NO.15 OF 2009
Mr.B.D.Joshi i/b. U.G.Deshpande for petitioners, Mr.Rui Rodrigues i/b. S.G.Talekar for respondent No.4 in E.P.11 of 2009, Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.L.M.Acharya for respondent No.4 in EP 14/09, Mr.L.M.Acharya i/b. S.M.Acharya and R.S.Shekhawat for respondent No.4 in E.P.13 of 2009, Mr.L.M.Acharya i/b. S.D.Vyas, A.Kulkarni and Sandip Mahadik for respondent No.1 in EP 15 of 2009.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Applications by returned candidates seeking dismissal of election petitions under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-disclosure of cause of action, or alternatively striking out paragraphs under Order VI Rule 16 CPC.
Remedy Sought
Returned candidates sought dismissal of election petitions in limine or striking out of certain paragraphs.
Filing Reason
Election petitions were filed by voters challenging the election of returned candidates to Lok Sabha from various Mumbai constituencies in 2009 general elections, alleging corrupt practices.
Issues
Whether the election petitions disclose a cause of action?
Whether the pleadings contain material facts as required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Whether the petitions are liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or paragraphs struck off under Order VI Rule 16 CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
The returned candidates argued that the election petitions do not disclose any cause of action and are liable to be dismissed in limine.
The petitioners (voters) presumably opposed the applications, but the judgment does not detail their arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
An election petition must disclose a cause of action and plead material facts constituting corrupt practices as required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Failure to do so renders the petition liable to be dismissed in limine under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
These are applications by the Returned Candidate invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) and seeking dismissal of the Election Petition in limine.
It is urged that this election petition as filed is liable to be dismissed in limine because it does not disclose any cause of action.
Procedural History
The returned candidates filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order VI Rule 16 CPC in four election petitions challenging their election to Lok Sabha from Mumbai constituencies in 2009. The court heard the applications and dismissed the election petitions.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VII Rule 11, Order VI Rule 16
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 83
