The main legal point established in the judgment is that an Election Petition must contain full particulars of corrupt practice and details on how the election result was materially affected, failing which the petition may be dismissed.

BELOW EXHS.10, 22 & 24:-

In this Election Petition, the respondent has filed Written Statement and has raised objection to its maintainability on various grounds as narrated in Application [Exh.10]. Additional objections and grounds have been raised by filing another application [Exh.22]. These applications have been replied by filing a detailed reply.

The petitioner has filed application [Exh.24] for leave to cure certain defects in the Election Petition.

All these applications were heard together at length.

2. After perusal of pleadings and after hearing the learned Advocates, this Court had framed Issues at Exh.14, which are as follows:-

"(i) Whether the petition presented by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed under section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 81 (1) and 81 (3) of the said Act?

(ii) Whether the petition presented by the petitioner is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it does not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 83(l)(a) and (b) and 83(2) of the Representation of People Act. 1951 and does not disclose any cause of action?

(ii-A) Whether pleadings contained in Paras 13 to 31 are liable to be struck off on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action?

(iii) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has violated the provisions of Section 33-A(1)(i) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ?

(iv) If the answer to the issue No.3 is in affirmative what is the effect thereof and whether it has materially affected the result of the election?

(v) Whether the petitioner proves that the election of the respondent is liable to be declared as void by virtue of the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ?

(vi) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has substantially exceeded the limit of expenses set by Section 77 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ?

(vii) Whether the petitioner proves that the Respondent has committed the corrupt practices as alleged in the petition?

(viii) Whether the petitioner proves that the result of the election has been materially affected due to the alleged corrupt practices?

(ix) Whether the petitioner proves that the election of the respondent is liable to be declared as void in terms of the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(ii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ?

(x) Whether the petitioner proves that there is a scope for manipulating and tampering with the Electronic Voting Machines?

(xi) Does the petitioner prove that the Returning Officer has breached the Statutory Rules and guidelines issued by the Election Commission regarding safety of the Electronic Voting Machines?

(xii) Does the petitioner prove that the alleged breach of the Rules and Regulations by the Returning Officer has materially affected the results of the election of the Respondent?

(xiii) Whether the petitioner proves that due to alleged violation of Statutory Rules and guidelines by the Returning Officer the election of Respondent is vitiated and whether the result of the election has been materially affected?

[Quoted from Exh.14 in the paper-book of Election Petition No.3 of 2009].

3. After hearing the parties, Issue Nos.(i) and (ii) were re-casted at Exh.20. It was then directed that the Issue No.(ii) be tried as a Preliminary Issue. Even Issue No.(ii-A) framed in the midst of hearing on Preliminary Point is liable to be treated as a Preliminary Issue. Parties are on agreement on the point that these Issues can be heard as Preliminary Issues.

4. The hearing on Preliminary Issue had commenced, and in the midst of hearing, the returned candidate had filed application for raising additional submissions on Preliminary Point which too are replied and have been taken into consideration.

S. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that ground contained in para 9 of the petition pertaining to non-disclosure is not pressed.

6. The o