V. DHANAPALAN, J.

1. This Application has been filed to strike off the pleadings in Paragraphs 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17 in the Election Petition 2 of 2009 and consequently to reject the Election Petition as being bereft of material facts and particulars and for want of cause of action and triable issues.

2. The case of the applicant runs thus:

2.1. In para 7 on page 5 of the Election Petition the last few lines mentioned that the election petitioner is putting forth the details of the alleged corrupt practice committed by the applicant with date and place of occurrence with full statements is false, as the election petition does not contain any details regarding the averment. No where, the election petitioner has shown with solid proof that the applicant or his men are involved in election misconduct.

2.2. In para 8 on page 6 of the Election Petition, the election petitioner stated that the applicant was indulging in bribing the electors by distribution of money and he also furnished the names of persons who had given the complaint. The petitioner has given a tabular column in which he has furnished the names of some persons who are alleged to have acted on behalf of the applicant and against whom complaints were lodged and the date of occurrence of misconduct. None of the allegations in Para 8 of the Election Petition that the applicant/first respondent in the Election Petition offered gratification by way of cash to the electors without material particulars will satisfy the requirement of Sections 123 (1) (A) or 123 (1) (B) of the Representation of the People Act,1951, in short, "the Act".

2.3. The averment contained in para 9 of the Election Petition on the basis of Document No.l4, a copy of the complaint given by the District Committee Secretary, Communist Party of India (Marxist) to the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, is nugatory and does not carry any merit.

2.4. Para 10 of the Election Petition contains the names of the party functionaries of the applicant, who had not done anything against the model code of conduct. Their names are unnecessarily dragged in to create a case. The election petitioner has alleged that the applicants party functionaries distributed various types of slips to the electors to induce them to vote in favour of the applicant, which is absolutely false and baseless. The slips numbered as Document Numbers 15,16 and 17, which the applicant is alleged to have distributed, are ones created by the election petitioner. The Document No.18 referred to in para 10 is nothing but a slip given by the booth agent for easy identification of the names of the voters. This procedure is adopted by all the political parties in all the elections, as it is a routine one and, therefore, this document cannot be taken as a piece of evidence. In the very same para 10, the election petitioner has mentioned that some vehicles with covers having cash have been seized which are nothing to do with the applicant. The newspaper clippings referred to in para 10 and also referred to as Document Numbers 19 and 20 cannot be construed as genuine documents and the news items published by the newspapers are inadmissible in evidence. The para, as a whole, is indistinct and it lacks clarity and clearly reveals that the facts alleged by the election petitioner are only hearsay.

2.5. In para 11 in page 10 the allegation that the applicants party functionaries distributed tokens to some section of the people when the applicant was campaigning in the Melur Assembly constituency is baseless and there is no proof to establish the same. A slip, which is marked as Document No.21 and which is alleged to have been distributed by the applicants party functionary is nothing but a bit of plain paper and it does not bear the applicants name or the party symbol. Further, Document No.22, a complaint given by a CPIM Party functionary (District Secretary), is created for the purpose of this case. Document No.23 is filed witho