Liabilities of a Company with which the candidate is associated as Director are not required to be disclosed in the affidavit of a candidate seeking election.

JUDGMENT :

Sudip Ahluwalia, J.

This is an Application filed by the Applicant/Respondent No.1 under Order VI Rule 16 read with Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Background of the matter is that election of the Applicant/Respondent No.1 as a Member of Punjab Legislative Assembly from 112-Dera Bassi Assembly Constituency, which was declared on 11.3.2017, was challenged by the Petitioner/non-Applicant in the main Election Petition under Sections 80 to 83 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act,1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951') alongwith its relevant enabling provisions.

3. The Petition was challenged by the Applicant/Respondent No.1 who filed his Written Statement, on the basis of which, seven issues were framed on 12.1.2018, out of which, issue No.4 which sought to impeach the Election Petition as being non-maintainable as it was allegedly in violation of Section 81 of the Act of 1951 by not having been personally presented by the Petitioner/non-Applicant, was taken up as the preliminary issue. The said issue was however, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in favour of the Petitioner on 7.8.2018 and the matter then posted for evidence on 24.8.2018. The Applicant/Respondent thereafter filed a Review Application against the decision on the preliminary issue No.4, which was then dismissed by the Coordinate Bench on 14.9.2018. In the meantime, the present Application was filed by the Applicant/Respondent on 12.9.2018, which has since come up for consideration before this Court.

4. The sum and substance of the present Application in a nutshell is that the facts/allegations as narrated in Paras 7 to 11 of the original Election Petition, are untenable and liable to be struck out under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC, and once that is done, the Election Petition itself would show no cause of action whatsoever for seeking election of the Applicant to be set aside.

5. The Application has been opposed at the outset on behalf of Petitioner, who contends that it is a motivated device to delay the trial in the case after the issues have already been framed and even the preliminary Issue No.4 has been decided. But this contention is not convincing because, as held by the Supreme Court in 'R.K.Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu and Another., (2016) 14 SCC 275' -

"5. Once an application is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial. There is no point or sense in proceeding with the trial of the case, in case the plaint (Election Petition in the present case) is only to be rejected at the threshold. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to file the application for rejection before filing his written statement. In case, the application is rejected, the defendant is entitled to file his written statement thereafter (See Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557). But once an application for rejection is filed, the court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial court."

6. Again in 'Samar Singh Vs. Kedar Nath alias K.N. Singh and others, (1987) Supp1 SCC 663' specifically in the matter of an Election Petition, in which it was held by the Apex Court that, "Election Petition can be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC even after framing of issues if it does not disclose a cause of action." In this view of the matter, the present Application cannot be rejected outright at this stage and is therefore, to be considered on merits.

7. In this backdrop, clearly the averments made in the impugned Paras 7 to 11 of the original Election Petition do call for consideration and analysis so as to determine whether or not the same are liable to be struck out under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC, and whether consequently the Election Petition itself is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC read with