( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS application under Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('the Act' for short) read with Order 6, Rule 16; Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('c. P. C. ' in short) is filed for respondent No. 1 ('r-1' for short) praying that for the reasons sworn to in his accompanying affidavit, the pleadings in paragraphs-6 to 21 of the Election Petition be struck out as being "unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and tending to prejudice and embarrass and consequently reject the petition as not disclosing the cause of action in the interest of justice and equity". It may be mentioned here that "paragraphs-6 to 21 of the Election Petition" stated in the application has to be, admittedly, read as paragraphs-6 to 11 of the Election Petition as there are only 11 paragraphs in the petition.

( 3 ) AS counter to this application, petitioner has filed his affidavit stating that the petition does disclose the cause of action, and that the application is liable to be rejected. Admitted Facts :

( 4 ) AT the General Election, the election to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from "the 100 Anekal Constituency (S. C.)" ('the Anekal Constituency' in short) was held on 5-9-1999, simultaneously with Parliamentary election in the State of Karnataka. R-5 was the Returning Officer (R. O.) duly appointed for this Anekal Constituency election process. Election Petitioner M. P. Keshava Murthy contested the said election from Anekal Constituency as an Indian National Congress candidate ('the Congress candidate' for short) and R-1 A. Narayana Swamy contested this election as a candidate of Bharathiya Janatha Party ('bjp' for short ). R-2 to R-4 were the other candidates for the said Assembly election. The counting of polled votes was done on 6-10-1999 and on the same day, election result was also announced by the R. O. declaring R-1 successfully elected to the said Assembly Constituency by a margin of 1,561 votes as against the petitioner, in whose favour the next highest number of votes cast. Other candidates R-2 to R-4, lost the race by a very wide margin of votes.

( 5 ) THE Election Petition was filed by the petitioner on 17-11-1999 challenging the election of R-1 from the 100 Anekal Assembly Constituency" to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, under sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 100 (1) (d) of the Act on the allegations of various illegalities and irregularities as committed by respondent No. 5, the Returning Officer ('the R. O. , for short) and his staff in the process of counting of polled votes and further contending that it was he (petitioner) who was entitled under Section 100 (1) (d) of the Act to be declared as duly elected. Therefore, the main reliefs prayed in paragraph-11 of the petition are :" (A) xxx xxx (b) declare the election of the first respondent to fill the seat from 100 Anekal (S. C.) Assembly Constituency in Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections as void; (c) to declare the petitioner as duly elected to fill the seat of Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 100 Anekal (S. C.) Assembly Constituency; and (d) xxx xxx"

( 6 ) THE petition paragraphs-1, 5 and 7 are like preamble portion of the petitioner's case which mostly state the introductory facts relating to the election and the method of counting of votes which are not in dispute. The allegations of illegalities and irregularities alleged to have been committed by the R. O. and his men on election duty are averred in paragraphs-6, 8, 9 and 10 of the petition. Paragraph-11 of the petition is merely the relief paragraph. The allegations in general terms made in paragraph-6 of the petition are that, a large number of votes cast in favour of petitioner have been improperly rejected and a large number of votes not cast in favour of R-1 have been improperly received and counted in favour of R-1 and a large number of votes have been wrongly treated as rejected while a large numb