JUDGMENT

K. G. Balakrishnan, CJI.

These appeals under section 116 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act' for short) are preferred against the order dated 10.2.2005 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, allowing application nos. 1064 and 1065 of 2004 in Election Petition No. 2/2004 and consequently rejecting the said Election Petition filed by the appellant.

2.The first respondent was elected to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 'No. 72 - Kovvur Assembly Constituency' in the election held on 24.4.2004. The appellant, a voter of the Constituency filed the said election petition for declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void, on the following four grounds :

(i)The nomination of Shri Pendyala Atchuta Ramaiah was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, by treating him as a dummy candidate.

(ii)The nomination of first respondent was improperly accepted.

(iii)The nomination of Jelly Venkata Ramanaiah was improperly accepted.

(iv)The list of the contesting candidates prepared by the Returning Officer was not in alphabetical order as required by section 38 of the Act. The first ground fell under section 100(1)(c), the second and third grounds under section 100(1)(d)(i) and the fourth ground under section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.

3.The returned candidate - first respondent, contested the election petition and filed two applications - IA No. 1064 of 2004 for striking off paras 8 to 11 of the election petition, under Order VI Rule 16 CPC read with section 83 of the Act and IA No.1065 of 2004 for rejection of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC read with section 83 of the Act. The High Court, after hearing, allowed the said applications by an elaborate order dated 10.2.2005. It struck off paras 8 to 11 of the election petition containing the grounds of challenge to the election and as a consequence, dismissed the election petition as not disclosing any cause of action. The said order is challenged in this appeal.

4.We may at the outset refer to two decisions laying down the principles relating to striking out pleadings. In Dhartipakar Madanlal Agarwal vs. Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1987 SC 1577), this Court observed :

"The first question which falls for our determination is whether the High Court had jurisdiction to strike out pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC and to reject the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code at the preliminary stage even though no written statement had been filed by the respondent On a combined reading of Sections 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the Act, it is apparent that those paragraphs of a petition which do not disclose any cause of action, are liable to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16, as the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike out or delete pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the petition or suit. It is the duty of the Court to examine the plaint and it need not wait till the defendant files written statement and points out the defects. If the court on examination of the plaint or the election petition finds that it does not disclose any cause of action it would be justified in striking out the pleadings If the Court is satisfied that the election petition does not make out any cause of action and that the trial would prejudice, embarrass and delay the proceedings, the court need not wait for the filing of the written statement instead it can proceed to hear the preliminary objections and strike out the pleadings. If after striking out the pleadings the court finds that no triable issues remain to be considered, it has power to reject the election petition under Order VII Rule 11."In Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi [2001 (8) SCC 233], this Court held as follows: "Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act, 1951 mandates that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petition