( 1 ) RESPONDENT 11 in the Election Petition No. 1/1990 has filed this application at i. A. No. III praying for striking off the pleadings contained in paras 6 to 13 of the election petition. The application filed by respondent 11 is purported to be one under section 86 of the Representation of the People Act (for short 'the Act') r/w Section 151, CPC.

( 2 ) IN the election petition, the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent 11 as M. L. A. from Bagewadi Assembly Constituency in Belgaum district on several grounds. After the written statement was filed and issues were raised and matter was posted for evidence, respondent 11, on an earlier occasion, had filed an application at LA. No. II praying for striking off paras 3 to 9 about corrupt practices on the ground that they lack the material facts and particulars. Subsequently, respondent 11 confined his application to paras 3 to 5. The said application at I. A. II was contested by the petitioner. Sri Murlidher Rao, J. (as he then was), after hearing the Advocates on either side and for the reasons reflected in his order dated 2-4-1991 was pleased to allow LA. No. II by directing that the allegations of "corrupt practices" pleaded in paras 3 to 5 of the election petition be struck off. However, the matter was posted for evidence since there were other grounds, regarding which issues were framed and parties were required to adduce evidence. It is necessary to mention here that consequent to the retirement of the learned Judge, Sri Murlidher Rao, J, the matter is assigned to the undersigned.

( 3 ) WHEN the matter was posted for evidence respondent 11 has again filed'one more application at LA. III praying for the reliefs referred to hereinabove. In the affidavit accompanying the application at LA. III, it is stated by respondent 11 that the contents of paras 9 to 13 relating to counting and with a prayer in para 15 (ii) for an order of recount the votes polled in the Bagewadi Constituency and on such recount declare the petitioner as duly elected candidate of the said Assembly constituency. It is pointed out that the petitioner has produced Annexure-A addressed to the Returning Officer, Bagewadi, District Belgaum on 27-11-1989 expressing doubt in counting and requesting to recount all the votes, for which, an order at Annexure-B has been passed by the Returning Officer giving detailed reasons and rejecting the request for recount. It is stated that the contents of para 11 of the ejection petition are completely vague and lacking material facts and also material particulars. It is also pointed out that the contents of para 12 are also equally vague without material facts and particulars. In the same way, the same omissions are attributed with reference to para 13 of the election petition. It is further asserted that the averments made in paras 6 to 8 do not give any material facts and material particulars and that being so, the case of the petitioner for recounting of votes of bagewadi Assembly Constituency cannot be taken to trial to fish out evidence during the course of trial. It is stated that even in respect of cases, relating to Section 100 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act, the petitioner is required to comply with the provisions of section 83 of the Act before going to trial. It is stated that the petitioner went on taking adjournments after the pleadings in paras 3 to 5 were struck off by a detailed order of this Court more than 8 to 9 months before LA. III was filed. On these grounds, in substance, respondent 11, the elected candidate has prayed for striking off paras 6 to 13 of the election petition.

( 4 ) LA. III is resisted by the petitioner to the election petition. The petitioner has pointed out that the present application at LA. III filed by respondent 11 is not maintainable. It is stated that Section 86 of the Act deals with trial of election petition and once the trial has started, the Court has the power to dismiss the petition only on thre