ORDER

V.P. Mathur, J. - This petition under O. VI, R. 16 and O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. has been moved by respondent 1, Shyam Surat Upadhyaya of Election Petition No. 42 of 1985. He is the main respondent in this case and it is he whose election is sought to be declared void. The election petitioner has come to seek three reliefs, namely (i) that the election of respondent 1, Shyam Surat Upadhyaya from 272 Pratappur, U.P. State Legislative Assembly constituency be declared void, (ii) that the petitioner be declared duly elected, and (iii) that a total repoll of the entire constituency or in the alternative of Polling Stations Nos. 70, 73. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81 and 82 may be directed and fresh results be declared.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the matter are that polling for the General Elections to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly was held on 5-3-1985 and after the counting of the votes which took place on 6-3-1985 respondent 1 Shyam Surat Upadhyaya was declared elected from 272, Pratappur Assembly Constituency. In all there were 14 candidates. Har Pratap Singh, who is election petitioner in this petition represented the Lok Dal and had secured 30283 votes while Shyam Surat Upadhyaya, who belonged to Indian National Congress, secured 34263 votes. Other candidates did not secure any appreciable number of votes.

3. The grounds taken in the Election Petition are (1) that respondent 1, Shyam Surat Upadhyaya, his Election Agents, workers and supporters with his consent directly or indirectly interfered with and attempted to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of the Voters by not permitting them to cast their votes and thus committed corrupt practice of undue influence vide S. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (2) Shyam Surat Upadhyaya his election agent/agents, workers and supporters with his consent threatened the polling agents of the petitioner and large number of voters, who had gone to cast their votes with dire consequences if they acted as polling agents of the petitioner and if the voters tried to exercise their right to vote and thereby again committed corrupt practice of undue influence under S. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), (3) the respondent 1 Shyam Surat Upadhyaya, his election agent/agents, workers and supporters with his consent forcibly captured a number of polling stations, terrorised and intimidated voters and themselves marked thousands of ballot papers in favour of respondent 1 and again committed corrupt practice under S. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act and lastly (4) the election of returned candidate, namely Shyam Surat Upadhyaya has been materially affected under S. 100(i)(d)(ii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by the corrupt practice of booth capturing resorted to by him, his election agents and workers in his interest and also by the non-compliance by the Returning Officer of the mandatory directions issued by the Election Commission of India on 6th November, 1984 and 2nd March, 1985. In support of these grounds, material facts and essential particulars have allegedly been given.

4. In the petition under O. VI, R. 16 and O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. the contention of respondent No. 1 is that the election petition suffers from incurable defects as it does not contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and it does not set forth full particulars of the corrupt practices that the petitioner has alleged and full statements as required by sub-sec. (d) of S. 83 have not been furnished. In this light of the allegations we will have to examine the various paragraphs of the petition to come to a conclusion as to how far they suffer from these defects.

5. However, before adverting to this point, it will be necessary to make some legal positions clear. O. VI, R. 16, C.P.C. lays down that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be