Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri P.S. Baghel, Senior Advocate and Sri N.K. Pandey, Advocate, for the respondent-applicant, Sri K.N. Tripathi and Sri K.R. Singh for election petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”).

2. These are four applications filed by respondent-applicant whereby, in substance, he has prayed for striking out certain paragraphs of election petition, exercising power under Order 6 Rule 16 C.P.C. and to dismiss the election petition outright as not disclosing any cause of action and also contravening the provisions contained in Sections 81 and 83 of Representation of Peoples Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1951”).

3. The application No. 340659 of 2010 (Paper No. A-17) has been filed under Order VI Rule 16 praying for striking out paragraphs No. 8, 9, 11, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of Election Petition being irrelevant, vague and vexatious.

4. Another application No. Nil of 2011 (Paper No. A-22) has also been filed under Order VI Rule 16 praying for striking out paragraphs No. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 43, 44, 53 and 55 of Election Petition being irrelevant, vague and vexatious.

5. The third application No. 340656 of 2010 (Pape