Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—This is an election petition under Section 80, 80-A and 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The petitioner had contested the election of 375, Ghazipur Legislative Assembly constituency of district Ghazipur in U.P. held on 11.2.2012 as per the election programme notified by the Election Commission of India and had lost the same to one of his rivals, respondent No. 1 by a margin of 241 votes.

Apart from the various grounds on which the result of the aforesaid election has been impugned, the main ground on which emphasis has been laid is one said to be covered by Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act i.e. non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or of any Rule or Order made under the Act.

2. Sri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing had made a statement that he would be pressing his petition only on the aforesaid ground with regard to non counting of the Postal Ballots of the “voters on election duty”.

On notice, the returned candidate, respondent No. 1 had put in appearance through Shri K.R. Singh. He filed a written statement and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) for rejection of the election petition on the allegation that it does not contain the material facts disclosing any cause of action for the petition on the above ground.

3. I have heard Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri N.K. Pancdey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

4. It may not be out of context to mention that by virtue of Section 87 of the Act every election petition is triable by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the provisions applicable under the Code to the trial of the suits.

Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code provides that the pleadings shall contain a statement in concise form of material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be.

5. Order 7 Rule 1(e) of the Code also mandates that the plaint shall contain the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose.

Section 83 of the Act provides that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies.

6. In view of the above provisions the disclosure of materials facts constituting a cause of action for the suit/petition is a mandatory part of the pleadings. It makes Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code more relevant as it provides for rejection of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the “election petition”), inter alia, where it does not discloses a cause of action.

7. In deciding an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code in an election petition, it is important to first consider the meaning of the two terms i.e. “cause of action” and “material facts”.

The expression “cause of action” is not specifically defined anywhere and it is difficult to define in a concise manner, but a group of facts giving rise to one or more reasons for suing generally constitutes a “cause of action”. The fact or facts which give rise to a right of action or which entitles a party to seek redress in a Court of law is/are “cause of action”. Therefore, a “cause of action” is antecedent to the institution of a suit. A bundle of facts put together which entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court of law constitutes a “cause of action”.

8. In Bloom Dekor Limited v. Subhash Himatlal Desai, (1994) 6 SCC 322, it has been observed that a bundle of facts which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit would constitute a “cause of action”.

9. In Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, 2001(8) SCC 233, it has been held that the expression “cause of action” has been compendiously defined to mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order