Application under Sections 81, 83 and 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) read with Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) in an election petition presented under Section 81 of the Act, wherein the main prayer of the election petitioner is for a declaration that the election to the to K R Pura Assembly Constituency is null and void and order fresh elections in the interest of justice and equity, as the petitioner is entitled for relief under Section 100(1)(c) of the Act, since rejection of petitioner’s nomination paper at the threshold by the returning officer is illegal and improper.

2. The application itself is filed by the present lone respondent, who is the candidate declared to have been elected from this assembly constituency in the general elections held for electing representatives of the people to the Karnataka assembly during 2008. The lone respondent, because this respondent though figuring as fifth respondent in the array of respondents as per the original presentation of the election petition remains as the sole surviving respondent in terms of the order passed by this court on 31-7-2008, whereby the election petitioner was permitted to delete the erstwhile respondents 1 to 4 viz., the chief election commissioner, election commissioners and election commission of India, the chief electoral officer, state of Karnataka the district electoral officer, Bangalore urban district and the returning officer, K R Pram assembly constituency, from the array of respondents.

3. The elected candidate has sought for dismissal of the election petition by filing the present application under the statutory provisions referred to above, which, if has to be achieved, can only be in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Act, as this is the only statutory provision which can achieve this result, even at the present stage, which is one wherein the issues are yet to be framed, as while a combination effect of the provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 86 of the Act inevitably achieves the result of dismissal of an election petition if the petition does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or 82 or 117 of the Act and in the present application, amongst the three statutory provisions referred to above and sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Act, only Section 81 having been relied upon, the desired result under Section 81 having been relied upon, the desired result under Section 86 can be achieved by the applicant, if it is demonstrated that the petition is one not complying with the requirements of Section 81.

4. This is the legal position, as a non-adherence to the requirement of Section 83 of the Act while by itself does not attract Section 86 of the Act, but the provisions of Section 83 being subject matter of judicial pronouncements, such judgments being called in aid to achieve the result, even for non-adherence with the provisions of Section 83 and in the like manner, the non-adherence to the requirement of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, also can achieve the result of rejection of an election petition and it is in the background of such possibilities in law, the present application is filed by the declared candidate, praying for dismissal of the election petition even before the petition could go for trial.

5. Obviously, the result is sought to be achieved withy reference to the contents of the petition by urging that the averments in the petition by themselves will not achieve the fulfillment of the mandatory requirement in terms of Sections 81 and 83 of the Act and further that the averments in the entire petition read as a whole also falls short of disclosing a live cause of action, which may not necessitate the court to permit the parties to lead evidence on the disputed versions of the parties and further examination of the question of granting relief, if the petitioner had made out a case for grant of such relief on the basis of the