JUDGMENT :

Order on Civil Misc. Application No.19 of 2019 filed in Election Petition No.12 of 2017 and Civil Misc. Application No.17 of 2019 filed in Election Petition No.13 of 2017 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of Satya Pal Singh Baghel respondent no.1

1. Both the aforesaid applications are filed to dismiss the Election Petition Nos.12 of 2017 filed by Prempal Singh and 13 of 2017 filed by Rakesh Babu, as infructuous.

2. The facts giving rise to the election petitions may be briefly stated as follows: There were general elections to the U.P. Legislative Assembly in February, 2017. The last date for filing nomination papers was fixed on 24th January, 2017 and on or before that date the petitioner Rakesh Babu in Election Petition No.13 of 2017 and the respondent no.1 Satya Pal Singh Baghel filed their nomination papers for Tundla Assembly Constituency (reserved for Scheduled Caste). The polling took place on 11th February, 2017 and the result was declared on 11st March, 2017 in which the respondent no.1 was declared as elected. The petitioner Prem Pal Singh in Election Petition No.12 of 2017 was an elector in the said constituency. The petitioners filed the election petitions questioning the validity of the election of the respondent no.1 to the Tundla Assembly Constituency on the ground that the Tundla Constituency No.95 was reserved for the Scheduled Caste. The respondent no.1 is originally resident of District Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh and he belongs to Gaderia (Pal/Baghel) caste, which is recognized as 'Other Backward Caste' in the State of Uttar Pradesh. A prayer was, therefore, made to declare the election of the respondent no.1 as void and for issuing appropriate consequential directions.

3. The written statement was filed on behalf of respondent no.1 on 15.4.2018, denying the allegations levelled by the petitioners in the aforesaid election petitions. The petitioners filed replication dated 27.7.2018 in reply to written statement stating therein that the respondent no.1 was not eligible to contest the election for Tundla Constituency No.95 (reserved for Scheduled Caste) as he belongs to Gadaria caste, which is notified as 'Other Backward Classes' in the State of U.P. He was also the National President of Bhartiya Janata Party Backward Caste Prakoshth and was working as Associate Professor in Agra College, Agra. Various other grounds have been taken in the affidavit filed in support of the replication.

The objection with regard to replication has been preferred by the respondent no.1 on 17.12.2018 for striking out the paragraphs Nos.4 to 86 of the replication or reject the replication with regard to the paragraph nos.4 to 86 and the documents filed in support of thereof in the replication.

4. After hearing both the parties the Court had proceeded to allow the objection filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 on 27.2.2019 and rejected the replication dated 23.1.2019, insofar as it relates to paras 4 to 86, and the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC preferred by the petitioners. The operative portion of the order dated 27.2.2019 reads as under:-.

“18. A perusal of the averments made in the election petition goes to show that the Election Petition of only seven paragraphs was preferred by the petitioner on 25.4.2017 challenging the election of the first respondent to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from 95 Tundla Assembly Constituency in which the notice was issued to the first respondent on 26.5.2017. Finally, the first respondent filed his written statement on 23.4.2018 stating that the allegations contained in the election petitions are not supported by any material particulars inasmuch as vague and frivolous averments have been made in the election petition. The petitioner has not alleged about the material effect on the result of the election in question and the pleadings are thus liable to be struck of from the election petition under the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure. The