1. Original Application Nos. 1052 and 1053 of 2017 have been filed by the respondent in Election Petition No. 13 of 2006 seeking to strike off paragraphs 8 to 18 in the Election Petition and also to reject the Election Petition.

2. Election Petition No. 13 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner therein seeking to declare that the election of the respondent from No. 128, Oddanchatram Legislative Assembly Constituency held on 16.5.2016, in which result was declared on 19.05.2016, as void.

3. Originally the Election Petition was filed against four respondents by arraying Mr. R. Sakkarapani as first respondent and the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi; District Election Officer and Collector, Dindigul District and Returning Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Oddanchatram Legislative Assembly Constituency as respondents 2 to 4 respectively. Later, by an order dated 17.07.2017 passed in O.A. Nos. 2, 20 and 21 of 2016, the respondents 2 to 4 were struck off from the array of respondents. Now, there is only one respondent in the Election Petition i.e. the returned candidate.

4. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in the Election Petition is referred to as “the petitioner” and the respondent in the Election Petition is referred to as “the returned candidate.”

5. The returned candidate has raised a preliminary objection for striking off the pleadings in the Election Petition and also reject the Election Petition by way of filing O.A. Nos. 1052 and 1053 of 2017. Though the petitioner objected that unless a plea is raised by the returned candidate in the counter and/or written statement to the Election Petition, it is not open to the Court to strike out pleadings contained in the Election Petition.

6. At the outset, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad Dixit ‘Ghorewala’ vs. Rajeev Gandhi, (1986) 4 SCC 78, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

“11..........If a preliminary objection is raised before the commencement of the trial, the Court is duty bound to consider the same, it need not postpone the consideration for subsequent stage of the trial.”

(Emphasis supplied)

7. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that trial is yet to commence. In view of the decision in Bhagwati Prasad, supra, this Court is inclined to consider first the preliminary objection raised by the returned candidate qua striking off the pleadings and the rejection of the Election Petition.

8. The averments in the Election Petition are that the returned candidate contested on the ticket of the recognised State level political party viz. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), from No. 128, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District in the election. In pursuance of the notification issued by the District Election Officer for conduct of elections on 22.04.2016, the Returning Officer issued notification for conducting election for No. 128, Ottanchatram Legislative Assembly stipulating the dates as under:

Date of filing of nomination	22.04.2016
Last date of filing nomination	29.04.2016
Date of scrutiny of nominations	30.04.2016
Last date for withdrawal of nominations	02.05.2016
Date of Polling	16.05.2016
Date of counting	19.05.2016
Date of declaration of results	19.05.2016

9. As per the list issued in Form-7A, totally 15 candidates have contested. On 25.04.2016, the returned candidate filed his nomination in Form 2B under Rule 4 along with an affidavit in Form 26 under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. After polling, the returned candidate secured 1,21,715 votes and he was declared as elected on 19.05.2016.

10. The case of the petitioner is that the returned candidate filed an incomplete nomination and as such the Returning Officer has improperly accepted the nomination of the returned candidate. According to the petitioner, the re