Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Sri U.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma, Advocate appeared for the applicant-respondent; Sri R.N. Singh and Rajiv Singh advocates have appeared for the petitioner.

2. These are three applications filed on behalf of respondent Bhishma Shankar in Election Petition No. 4 of 2009.

3. Application No. 45570 of 2010, Paper No. A-10 dated 15.2.2010 is under Order VI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code (in short “CPC”) for striking off paragraphs No. 7 to 18 of the election petition being irrelevant, vague and fictitious.

4. Second Application No. 45568 of 2010, Paper No. A-11 dated 15.2.2010 is under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for dismissal of election petition for non disclosure of cause of action.

5. The third application No. 45574 of 2010, Paper No. A-9 is under Section 86(1) of Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “ 1951 Act”) for dismissal of election petition for non-compliance of Sections 81(3) and 86(1) of 1951 Act.

6. Petitioner Rajesh Singh contested 15th Lok Sabha General Election from Lok Sabha Constituency No. 62, Sant Kabir Nagar, State of U.P. In the aforesaid election respondent Bhishma Shankar alias Kushal Tiwari was returned elected having secured 2,11,043 votes while the petitioner was polled 107779 votes, i.e, fourth highest votes.

7. The respondent contested election on the ticket of Bahujan Samaj Party. It is said that there were 24 candidates and the number of votes polled to them is mentioned in para 3 of the petition. I am not concerned at this stage with alliance details of different political parties to which some of candidates belong being not relevant for the purpose of present dispute. The election petition contains in all 20 paragraphs. The first four paragraphs refer to the details of the candidates and votes polled to them. In 5th paragraph some ideological beliefs of the petitioner and his party is mentioned. In paras 6 and 7 averments regarding followings of the party is stated. The averments made in paragraph 8 refers to self acclaimed support of the petitioner by the people of the constituency and para 9 alleges that the petitioner had bright prospect of winning the election.

8. The allegations in general in respect to the returned candidate and its party commence from paragraph Nos. 10 to 18 and read as under:

“10. That on the other hand the political motto of the returned candidate and other candidates was partisan and they had adopted all the corrupt practices for wining the election.

11. That the returned candidate adopted corrupt practice for winning the election. He as well as his party had been adopting corrupt practice as provided in Section 123 (3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He as well as his party openly before the public officers and election officers were spreading feelings of enmity and heartedness among various caste, particularly castigating the upper caste to which the petitioner belong for all the grieves and miseries of the dalits.

12. That besides aforesaid corrupt practice influencing the voters, the returned candidate respondent and his agents also obtained assistance of the election officers of the district and other officer and police forces in manipulating the polling of the votes as well as counting of the votes and thus also indulge in corrupt practice as provided in Section 123(7) of the act.

13. That the after end of the polling of votes on the date of votes, the electronic voting machine (herein after referred to as the EVM) at various polling stations were sealed with the signature of the agents of the petitioner and other candidates.

14. That however at the time of counting of votes the Returning Officer did not allow the agents of the petitioner to inspect the all the E.V.M. as to weather seals are intact or not as provided in Rule 55C of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Rather before the start of the counting the Returning Of