JUDGMENT :

1.This application under Order 6, Rule 16 read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code” for brevity) has been filed by the returned candidate-Tara Prasad Bahinipati, who contested the 143-Jeypore (General)Assembly Constituency in the general election of the year 2014. The sole opposite party is the election petitioner.

2.The election petitioner-Rabinarayan Nanda the official candidate of the Biju Janata Dal (hereinafter referred to as the “BJD” for brevity) filed an application under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as the “R.P. Act” for brevity) for declaring the election of the returned candidate, i.e., the petitioner in this Misc. Case to be invalid on the ground that his nomination has been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer as it did not contain a mention of the criminal cases pending against the returned candidate and there is prevaricating statement regarding his educational qualification. The election petition has been admitted and notice has been issued. The opposite parties have already appeared and filed their written statement and issues have been framed. Six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the election petitioner and all witnesses for the respondent have been examined and the last witness R.W.5 has been examined on 4.2.2016. Hon’ble Shri Justice Biswanath Rath has recorded the entire evidence in this case. On 29.3.2016 His Lordship has directed the registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to place the matter before any other Bench and as per the kind minutes of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the matter is placed before this Court. After the matter was placed, the election petitioner filed this Misc. Case under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code to dismiss the election petition along with a prayer under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code to strike out the entire pleadings in the Election Petition filed by the election petitioner.

3. Before adverting into the matter of controversy, it is appropriate for this Court to take note into the grounds on which the application has been filed. It is undisputed that the returned candidate has got more votes than the election petitioner. It is the case of the returned candidate in the Misc. Case that the election petition is thoroughly deficient in pleadings to make out any cause of action and the opposite party/election petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate the contentions as to how the result of the election so far it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected, the continuance of a proceeding of present nature is not only an abuse of the process of the Court, but is an anathema to the concept of fair trial. The returned candidate has filed this application under Order 6, Rule 16 read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code on the following grounds:-

(I) The election petition and pleadings therein are unnecessary prolix and verbose or argumentative or is full of matter which is wholly irrelevant. Hence, required to be deleted by exercising power under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code.

(II) The conduct of the election petitioner is so glaringly contumacious and tended to keep a mater alive for political mileage, the petitioner deserves to be dealt with sternly as the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court.

(III) The general averments taken in the election petition are deficient in pleadings of all constituent parts of material facts and do not constitute pleadings of full cause of action and are liable to be struck down.

4. It is pleaded that when the grounds/pleadings made in an election petition are vague, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and may prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial, the Court has the power under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code to strike out such pleadings. Similarly, where an election petition does not disclose a cause of action the same can be rejected/dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of th