Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner was declared elected as Chairman Nagar Panchayat Bhokarheri, district Muzaffarnagar on 6.11.2006. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Bina was also contesting for the said post. She lost by a margin of about 640 votes. Respondent No. 2 filed election petition under Section 20 of U.P. Municipalities Act of 1960 against the petitioner challenging her election and seeking further relief that either she might be declared as Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat or re-election might be directed (Annexure IV to the writ petition is the copy of the election petition). The main ground taken in the election petition is that the writ petitioner i.e. elected candidate, opposite party in the Election Petition was under age as her date of birth according to her high school certificate was 18.6.1979 and on the date of nomination she was only 27 years and few months old while the minimum age prescribed is 30 years. Election petition is pending before A.D.J. Court No. 6, Muzaffarnagar in the form of Election Petition No. 519 of 2006.

3. In the election petition, writ petitioner filed applications under. Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and Order VI Rule 16, C.P.C. The applications have been rejected through orders dated 29.1.2008, 23.10.2007 and 21.3.2007 copies of which are Annexures 1, 2 and 3. The said orders have been challenged through this writ petition. Through the first order dated 21.3.2007 application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. was rejected. In the said application the main ground taken by the writ petitioner was that the objection regarding her age was not raised before the Presiding Officer at the time of nomination or election. It was also stated in the said application that full particulars and material facts had not been mentioned in the election petition. In my opinion the Court below rightly rejected the said application. In the election petition date of birth of the petitioner has been given. Thereafter, no further particular was required to be given. If a candidate is below the minimum prescribed age on the date of nomination then she is disqualified from contesting the election. The election petition fully disclosed cause of action.

4. It was also one of the objections taken in the application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. that the plaint was not filed in duplicate and that as many copies of the plaint as there were defendants in the election petition were not supplied along with requisite fee for service of summons on the defendants within two days from the date of the order in that regard.

5. Through the second order dated 23.10.2007 (Annexure II) application of petitioner under Order VI Rule 16 was rejected. The petitioner had pleaded that full particulars and complete facts had not been mentioned in the election petition. Under the said Rule pleadings may be struck off if they are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. It was further stated in the said application that material particulars had not been provided. The said application was rightly rejected. Similar pleas had already been taken in the earlier application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Even otherwise the case was not covered by Order VI Rule 16, C.P.C. Full particulars had already been given. The only ground taken in the election petition was that petitioner was under age. Regarding that ground the only particular which was required to be stated was the date of birth of writ petitioner. This fact/particular has specifically been stated in the Election Petition.

6. As far as third order dated 29.1.2008 (Annexure I) is concerned it was passed on the second application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. In the earlier application filed under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. the ground taken was that election petition did not disclose any cause of action. In the second application, the ground taken was that plaint was not filed in duplicate and sufficient number of copies of pla