Point of Law: Clause (4) of Section 123 of Act shows that publication is required to be reasonably calculated by a candidate or his agent.

JUDGMENT :

1. The case is listed on an application preferred by respondent No.1 - Rampratap Kaslaniya under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Section 83 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 as well as on the application preferred by the respondents under Order 1 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. Briefly, the facts in the present Election Petition are that the instant Election Petition has been preferred under Sections 80, 81, 100(1)(B) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1951"), whereby, a challenge has been made to the Election of the respondent No.-1 (Rampratap Kaslaniya) as Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Suratgarh (No.4), District Sri Ganganagar in pursuance to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Election, 2018. The result of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Election-2018 was declared on 11.12.2018 and the respondent No.1-Shri Rampratap Kaslaniya was declared as Member of Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.) of Suratgarh (No.4), District Sri Ganganagar.

3. Aggrieved of the same, the present Election Petition was filed by the Election Petitioner before this Court on 13.01.2019. The notices of the Election Petition were issued by this Court on 25.02.2019. After service of notices upon the respondents, certain applications were filed by the respondents which are as under :-

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, while arguing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Section 83 of The Representation of People Act, 1951 has vehemently argued that a bare perusal of the election petition goes to show that it does not disclose a cause of action, the pleadings are laconic and the allegations levelled are bald, without any facts much less no evidence in support of the allegations levelled in the election petition. He further submits that the election petition has been filed solely on the ground that corrupt practices were adopted by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. He also submits that the only allegation against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 is that the name of the petitioner was wrongly shown in their pamphlets/posters and other election materials and for this reason, he lost the election. Learned counsel submits that out of 15 candidates, the respondent No.1 secured 69,032 votes as against t