Judgment

Mr. Deepak Sibal, J.

The present order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant-respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short – the Code) read with Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short – the Act) seeking therein rejection of the main election petition on the ground that a reading of the same does not disclose any cause of action.

2. On 21.09.2021 the Election Commission of India (for short – the ECI) announced the dates for holding of Assembly Elections in 31- Sonipat Assembly Constituency in the State of Haryana. The ECI also notified the schedule for the date of issuance of the gazette notification; last date for filing of nominations; date of scrutiny of the filed nominations; last date for withdrawal of candidature; the date of polling; date of counting and the date of declaration of the result. 14 candidates, including the petitioner and respondent, contested the election. After the declaration of the results the respondent was declared elected as he secured the highest number of valid polled votes i.e. 79438 votes. The petitioner secured 175 votes.

3. Through the main petition the petitioner challenges the respondent’s election on the ground that during his election the respondent had indulged in several corrupt practices.

4. On being put to notice the respondent did not file a written statement. Instead, he filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, duly supported by an affidavit, seeking rejection of the petitioner’s election petition on the ground that the contents thereof were vague, nonspecific, irrelevant and that the same did not disclose any cause of action. It was further submitted that the pleadings of the election petition also did not conform to the requirements under Section 83 of the Act as they lacked portrayal of material facts/ full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice(s). Therefore, it was prayed that the election petition was not worth to be put on trial and being an abuse of the process of the Court, was liable to be outrightly rejected.

5. Per contra, the petitioner who appeared in person, submitted that by not declaring actual expenses incurred during the course of his election campaign, the respondent had indulged in corrupt practices and in this regard specific averments had been made by him in his petition. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent seeking outright rejection of the petitioner’s election petition be dismissed and his election petition be put to trial and thereafter be allowed.

6. The petitioner who appeared in person and learned counsel for the respondent have been heard at length and with their able assistance the record of the case has also been perused.

7. The first question before this Court is as to whether under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code the petitioner’s election petition can be rejected at the preliminary stage even before the filing of a written statement by the respondent.

8. To answer the afore question reference to Sections 80, 80A, 83 and 87 of the Act would be necessary and therefore, these Sections are reproduced below for reference:-

“80. Election petitions.—

No election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part.

80A. High Court to try election petitions.—

(1) The Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be the High Court.

(2) Such jurisdiction shal