Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed an application filed by the original respondent (the elected candidate) seeking to strike out paragraphs 12 to 18 of the election petition under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The election petition, filed by a voter of the Sawantwadi Legislative Assembly constituency, challenged the election of the respondent on grounds of non-disclosure of two immovable properties, government dues, spouse's income, and suppression of pending criminal cases in the affidavits filed with the nomination. The respondent argued that the pleadings were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious. The court held that the allegations raised triable issues under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and that striking out pleadings at a preliminary stage is not warranted unless the pleadings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious. The court noted that the aspect of criminal cases was being dealt with separately in another application. Consequently, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Striking Out Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 16 CPC - Election Petition - Allegations of non-disclosure of assets and criminal cases in nomination affidavits constitute triable issues and cannot be struck out at preliminary stage - Held that the court must not strike out pleadings unless they are manifestly frivolous or vexatious, and the allegations in the petition disclose a cause of action (Paras 1-10).
B) Election Law - Non-Disclosure of Assets - Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Allegations that the elected candidate failed to disclose two immovable properties, government dues, and spouse's income in the affidavit filed with nomination - Held that such allegations, if proved, could materially affect the election result and thus raise triable issues (Paras 2-6).
C) Election Law - Suppression of Criminal Cases - Section 33A Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Allegations that the candidate suppressed information about pending criminal cases in the affidavits filed under Section 33A - Held that the issue of suppression of criminal cases is a separate matter dealt with in another application and not subject to this order (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the pleadings in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the Election Petition alleging non-disclosure of immovable properties, government dues, spouse's income, and criminal cases should be struck out under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.
Final Decision
The application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 6 Rule 16 CPC
- striking out pleadings
- election petition
- non-disclosure of assets
- suppression of criminal cases
- triable issues
- Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) Representation of People Act
- 1951
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (02) 57
Application No.26 of 2010 in Election Petition No.16 of 2009
Mr. M M Vashi with Mr. Sean Wassoodew i/by M.P.Vashi and Associates for the Petitioner; Mr.V.C.Kotwal, senior counsel with Mr.Sachindra B Shetye and Mr.S V Gavand for the Applicant original Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC to strike out pleadings in an election petition challenging the election of the respondent on grounds of non-disclosure of assets and criminal cases.
Remedy Sought
The applicant (original respondent) sought dismissal of the election petition and striking off of paragraphs 12 to 18 of the petition.
Filing Reason
The applicant contended that the pleadings in paragraphs 12 to 18 were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.
Issues
Whether the pleadings in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the Election Petition should be struck out under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.
Whether the allegations of non-disclosure of assets and criminal cases raise triable issues under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the pleadings were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious and should be struck out under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC.
The petitioner argued that the allegations disclosed a cause of action and raised triable issues.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that allegations of non-disclosure of assets and criminal cases in election affidavits constitute triable issues under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and cannot be struck out at a preliminary stage under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC unless manifestly frivolous or vexatious.
Judgment Excerpts
The above Application has been filed by the original Respondent in Election Petition No.16 of 2009, who is the elected candidate and whose election is challenged in the above Election Petition, inter alia claiming the following reliefs : (a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the election Petition filed by the Petitioner; (b) That the pleadings in Paragraphs No.12 to 18 of the Election Petition be struck off.
The Applicant/Respondent has filed the above Application inter alia on the ground that in terms of Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is empowered to direct striking off the pleadings at any stage which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit.
Procedural History
The election petition (EP No.16/2009) was filed by the petitioner challenging the election of the respondent. The respondent filed Application No.26/2010 seeking to strike out paragraphs 12 to 18 of the petition. The court reserved judgment on 16 December 2010 and pronounced on 17 February 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 Rule 16
- Representation of People Act, 1951: Section 100(1)(d)(i), Section 100(1)(d)(iv)
- Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: Rule 4A, Section 33A
