Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri U.N.Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad and Sri Chandan Sharma for the applicant-respondent and Sri K.R.Singh for the petitioner.

2. These are three applications filed on behalf of respondent Bhishma Shankar in Election Petition No. 11 of 2009.

3. Application No. 48541 of 2010, Paper No. A-14 dated 15.2.2010 is under Order VI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code (in short “CPC”) for striking off paragraph Nos. 5, 7 to 10, 21 to 23 and 25 to 34 of election petition being irrelevant, vague and fictitious.

4. Second Application No. 48548 of 2010, Paper No. A-16 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. 48545 of 2010, Paper No. A-15, 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 Sharad Tripathi 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 1,81,547 votes. The petitioner lost election by 29,496 votes.

7. The petitioner contested election on the symbol of ‘lotus’ having a ticket from Bhartiya Janta Party while respondent No. 1 contested election on the ticket of Bahujan Samaj Party with the symbol of ‘elephant’.

8. The election petition runs in 50 paragraphs. The first three paragraphs relate to election notification in the Parliamentary Constituency Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P.), and the election schedule. Paragraph 4 contains the averments of self acclaimed good reputation of petitioner and his confidence of winning election. Para 5 in general alleges that there was improper refusal and reception of votes and non-compliance of provisions of 1951 Act, Rules and orders made thereunder including directions issued by Election Commission resulting in illegal declaration of election result in favour of respondent No. 1. Para 6 refers to number of votes polled in favour of petitioner and respondent No. 1 and that there was a margin of only 29,496 votes. Para 7 contains grounds of challenge to election and three grounds mentioned therein are :

“A. Because the result of the election, in so for as it concerns the respondent No. 1, has been materially affected by improper reception of votes in favour of respondent No. 1, and other candidates and improper refusal of the votes of the petitioner.

B. Because the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the respondent No. 1, has been materially affected due to non-compliance of the provisions of the Act aforesaid and the rules and Orders made thereunder and the directions issued by the Election Commission.

C. Because it is, in fact, the petitioner who has received the majority of valid votes in the election in question and is entitle to be declared elected as a member of the Lok Sabha.”

9. Para 8 of election petition states concise statement of material facts with regard to grounds A, B and C and thereafter upto para 46 averments alleging to be material facts and particulars for challenging the election of respondent No. 1 have been given.

10. The applicant-respondent has contended that paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, 23, 25 to 34 in the election petition are vague, fictitious, irrelevant and be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 C.P.C. Hence, it would be relevant to reproduce the above paragraphs except 7 :

“5. That as detailed in this election petition subsequently there was improper refusal and reception of votes and non-compliance of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the rules and orders made there under and the directions issued by the Election Commission as a result of which the respondent No. 1 was illegally declared elected in t