JUDGMENT

S.RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:—The appellant was one of the 11 contestants from Niwadi Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 34 of Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha. The election was held in the months of February/ March, 1985, the polling date of which was on 2-3-1985. The appellant was a nominee, of the Janata Party. The first respondent was sponsored by the Congress Party. As the first respondent had secured majority of votes i.e. by a margin of 5,000 votes over and above his next rival candidate, namely the appellant herein the first respondent was duly declared on 6-3-1985 as successfully elected.

2. The appellant presented an election petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, calling in question the election of the first respondent alleging that the first respondent was guilty of adopting corrupt practices within the meaning of subsecs. (2), (3) and (3A) of S. 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is hardly necessary to stress that the pleadings were traversed and denied by the first respondent in his statement. The High Court dismissed the election petition and hence by this appeal under S. 116A of the Act the appellant challenges the correctness of the decision of the High Court. On the several issues framed upon the pleadings of the parties only issues 3, 4 and 5 are pressed before us as the main grounds in support of the appeal and the rest are given up. Hence for the purpose of the present appeal, we have to examine and deal with these three relevant issues alone as set out by the High Court. These issues are:-

"(3) Whether the nomination paper of Shri Pratap Singh, son of Mitilal, the respondent No. 11 had been improperly rejected? If so, whether the election is liable to be set aside under S. 100(1)(c) of the R. P. Act, 1951?

(4) Whether the respondent No. 1 held a meeting at Niwadi on 28-2-1985 and told the electors that he would present silver shield to the electors of the polling booth recording maximum number of votes in his favour? If so, whether respondent No. 1 is guilty of corrupt practices under S. 123(1) of the Act?

(5) Whether Shri Shital Prasad Sharma, S.D.O. (Revenue) and Shri Dubey, S.D.O. Police accompanied with respondent No. 1 at various places between 9-2-1985 and 2-3-1985 and asked the electors to vote for him? whether Shri Sharma distributed money in village Teharka and asked voters to vote for respondent No. 1? if so, effect.

3. High Court which has dealt with on the various aspects of the matter has held that the appellant has not substantiated all the charges levelled by him against the first respondent challenging the declaration of the first respondent as having been duly elected.

4. Normally, this Court in an appeal as the one on hand does not interere on a finding of facts of this type unless there are prima facie good grounds to show that the High Court has gravely erred resulting in serious prejudice to the appellant. We, therefore, shall now examine whether there are any compelling reasons justifying our interference with the findings of the High Court.

5. Court in a catena of decisions has laid down the principles as to the nature of pleadings in election cases, the sum and substance of which being:-

1. The pleadings of the election petitioner in his petition should be absolutely precise and clear containing all necessary details and particulars as required by law vide Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1987 Supp SCC 93 and Kona Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao (1982) 1 SCC 442.

2. The allegations in the election petition should not be vague, general.in nature or lack of materials or frivolous or vexatious because the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike down or delete pleadings which are suffering from such vices as not raising any triable issue vide Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh (1974). 1 SCR 52, Kona Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao (1982) 1 SCC 442 and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal