IMPORTANT POINT
An election petition must contain specific pleadings to establish a cause of action, and cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage if such pleadings are present, as the merits of the case should be examined in a full trial.

ORDER :

Rekha Borana, J.

1. The present revision petitions have been preferred against the order dated 02.09.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nokha in Election Petition No.17/2023, 16/2023, 15/2023, & 18/2023 respectively, whereby the applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No.1’) had been dismissed.

2. The facts and grounds as raised being identical in all these matters, the same are decided by this common order.

3. Brief facts are that four different election petitions were preferred by Sunil Jhanwar, Narayan Ram, Mahendra Kumar and Sriniwas Jhanwar (respondent No.1 in each petition) challenging the election of the present petitioner defendant No.1 Narayan Jhanwar as Chairman of Municipal Board, Nokha. In the said election petitions, four different applications under Order VII Rule 11, CPC were preferred by defendant No.1 Narayan Jhanwar, the elected candidate, which were rejected vide four separate orders dated 02.09.2023 against which the present revision petitions have been filed.

The facts of Civil Revision Petition No.136/2023 (Narayan Jhanwar vs. Narayan Ram) are being taken as the lead case.

4. The election petition was preferred by present respondent No.1 Narayan Ram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) challenging the election of petitioner defendant No.1 Narayan Jhanwar as Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nokha. The ground of challenge was that defendant No.1 wrongly posed himself to be a candidate of Nationalist Congress Party (hereinafter referred to as 'NCP') and fraudulently got the election symbol of 'an analog alarm clock' allotted in his favour. It was averred in the election petition that defendant No.1, in connivance with defendant No.2, the Returning Officer, fraudulently made some alterations in his nomination Form and on basis of the said incorrect/fraudulent entries in the nomination Form, he was accepted as a candidate of NCP whereas defendant No.1 was neither a candidate of NCP nor could he be considered to be so. It has therefore been submitted that the nomination Form of defendant No.1 could not have been accepted as such and the improper acceptance of his nomination has materially affected his election (the returning candidate).

5. It has further been submitted that initially the nomination forms of respondent plaintiff Narayan Ram, petitioner defendant No.1 Narayan Jhanwar and two other candidates namely Mahendra Kumar and Sriniwas Jhanwar were accepted and that of Sunil Jhanwar was rejected and even the list thereof in the requisite format 4A after been signed by the Returning Officer, was issued and published on the same date i.e. 03.02.2021. However, at about 8:00-9:00 PM, a fresh list was issued by the Returning Officer illegally whereby the nomination forms of plaintiff Narayan Ram and Mahendra Kumar were declared to be rejected and that of Sunil Jhanwar was declared to be accepted. In the said manner, the nomination form of the plaintiff was illegally rejected because of which the election of the returning candidate has been materially affected.

With the aforesaid submissions, the election of defendant No.1 had been prayed to be declared null and void.

6. An application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was preferred on behalf of defendant No.1 Narayan Jhanwar in the said election petition with a submission that the election petition does not reflect any cause of action in terms of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2009’) and hence, the same deserves to be rejected at the threshold. The said application as preferred by defendant No.1 has been rejected vide the order impugned dated 02.09.2023 against which the present revision petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC is wholly illegal as a bare perusal of the