JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1. Mr. G.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the proforma opposite party no. 13 is present. None appears on call for the proforma respondent nos. 2 to 12.

2. The applicant is the returned candidate, i.e. the elected Member from the No. 10, Sonai Legislative Assembly Constituency. By filing the connected election petition, his election has been challenged by the opposite party no. 1 by filing the connected election petition. In connection with the said election petition, the proforma opposite party no. 13 has filed a recrimination petition, registered as Recrimination Petition No. 1/2021. For the sake of clarity and to avoid any confusion, in this order the parties are referred to as per their respective status in the cause title of the election petition i.e. El. Pet. No. 1/2021.

3. By filing this interlocutory application under the provision of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short), read with section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act for short), the returned candidate, i.e. the respondent no. 1 in the connected election petition has prayed for rejection of the election petition.

Submissions by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 (i.e. applicant):

4. By extensively referring to the statements made in the election petition, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that the election of the respondent no. 1 has been challenged on the following four allegations, viz. (i) falsity of educational qualification of B.A. as disclosed in the 2021 election affidavit; (ii) suppression of educational qualification of Diploma in Engineering as disclosed in 2016 election affidavit; (iii) suppression of bank details; (iv) suppression of un-liquidated provident fund dues. Accordingly, it is submitted that the election petitioner claims that this was a case of (a) improper acceptance of nomination, which is covered under the provisions of section 100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act and (b) corrupt practice of undue influence, which is covered under Section 123(2) of the RP Act.

5. It was submitted that the allegations is to the effect that in the affidavit filed in respect of the election held in the year 2021, a false disclosure made by stating that the educational qualification of the respondent no. 1 was having B.A. Degree (i.e. Degree in Bachelor of Arts), which was in contradiction to the claim made by the respondent no. 1 in his affidavit filed in respect of the election held in the year 2016 that he was having educational qualification of Diploma in Engineering.

6. It was also submitted that in the affidavit filed in connection with the elections held in the year 2021, the respondent no. 1 had suppressed bank account details and his outstanding bank liability and moreover, the respondent no. 1 had not disclosed the statutory dues payable to the provident fund authority by M/s. Allied Concern, his partnership firm.

7. It was submitted that the statements made in the election petition can be compartmentalized under 9 (nine) parts, viz. (1) recitals (paragraphs 1 to 8); (2) general statements on law (paragraphs 25, 30, 32 and 33); (3) limitation (Para 35); (4) security deposit (Para 37); (5) bona-fide (Para 38); (6) submissions (paragraphs 26 and 28 to 34); (7) falsity of educational qualification [paragraphs 9, 9(A), 9(B), 10 to 14, 16, 20, 21, 22 and 26]; (8) suppression of bank account details with details of bank liability [paragraphs 9, 9(C), 17, 26 and 28]; (9) suppression of statutory dues on account of provident fund [paragraphs 9(D), 15, 16 and 26]. In the said context, it was submitted that in the election petition, there is no pleadings on material facts and lack of particulars on the allegations of