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 (Paper No. A-16) is under Order VII Rule 11 (a) C.P.C. for rejection of election petition since it does not disclose any cause of action.

6. The fourth application No. 125343 of 2011 (Paper No. A-23) is under Section 86(1) of Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “1951 Act”) praying for dismissal of election petition as not maintainable for non compliance of the provisions of Sections 81 and 83 of 1951 Act. This application was filed in the Court itself and learned counsel for the petitioner sought to oppose this application on the basis of affidavits already filed and did not seek any time to file a separate reply. They made oral submissions to oppose this application relying on the affidavits filed in other applications.

7. The petitioner has preferred this election petition challenging election of Parliamentary seat for 68 Lalganj (SC) Parliamentary Constituency, District Azamgarh wherein the respondent is the returned candidate. In the year 2009 the Parliamentry elections were notified by the Election Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”). In respect of election of Parliamentary Seat for 68 Lalganj (SC) Parliamentary Constituency, District Azamgarh, the election programme notified by the Commission mentions the date of polling 16th April 2009 and date of counting of votes and declaration of result was 16th May 2009. The petitioner contested the election as candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) with the symbol lotus while the respondent contested the election being a candidate of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) with the symbol of elephant. Since parliamentary constituency in question is reserved for scheduled castes, both the parties belong to the said category. The respondent received 2,07,998 votes while the petitioner bagged 1,68,050 votes. Consequently, the respondent was declared elected by a margin of 39,948 votes qua the petitioner. This election petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the provisions of the Act 1951, Rules and orders framed thereunder and in particular violation of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of Act 1951. The respondent applicant vide two applications paper No. A-17 and A-22 has prayed for striking of certain paragraphs which in totality are as under:

“8. That the election of respondent is void and is liable to be set aside on the following amongst the other:

GROUNDS

A. Because the result of the Election of respondent has been materially affected by non-compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and orders made therein as contained under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.

B. Because the Election of respondent is void and is liable to be declared void and set aside.

9. That a concise statement of material facts and particulars with regard to the aforesaid grounds ‘A’