S.K. Seth, J. - 1. A bye-election was held on 26th of March 1989 to fill up vacancy to the seat from 162 Durg constituency of the State assembly Before that, the election programme had been published by the Returning Officer on 28th of February. In accordance with the said programme, the prospective candidates had to file their nomination papers not later than 1st of March. The date of scrutiny had been 2nd of March and date of withdrawal 4th of March. After the election, the counting was to take place on 27th of March and the election result was to be declared on the same day.

2. After scrutiny and withdrawals, 13 persons were declared to be contesting candidates for the bye-election. Respondent Shri Motilal Vora was amongst these 13 contesting candidates. He was a candidate of the Indian National Congress having the symbol of 'hand' (Hath). He had been a Minister in the Central Cabinet. After leaving the same, he bad been the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh since January, 1989. In the polling held on 26th of March 1989, the total votes cast were 1,11,050. Having secured 77, 487 votes, respondent Shri Vora was declared as duly elected to fill the seat in the State assembly from the particular constituency. One Shri Bise Yadav, an independent candidate, was Shri Vora's nearest rival. While losing to Sari Vora, he had secured 21, 154 votes in the bye• election.

3. Petitioner, Shri Alok Diwan, has presented the present election petition in his capacity as a voter of 162 Durg constituency. It is claimed by him that he is a press correspondent of Hindi daily evening paper & 'Pahat' Published from Durg. In the present petition, he has called in question the election of the returned candidate i.e. Shri Motilal Vora on grounds Nos. I to VIII mentioned in para 7 of the petition. It may be pointed out that after mentioning ground No. IV in the said para the next ground has been wrongly mentioned as ground No. VI and as such the total number of grounds raised by the petitioner is not eight but only seven.

4. After the service of notice of petition on him, the returned candidate i.e. respondent Shri Motilal Vora instead of filing his written statement made an application I.A.No.2/89) purporting to be one under order 7 rule 11 C.P.C. raising a preliminary objection that as the allegations made in grounds 1 to VIII mentioned in para 7 of the petition even assuming them to be true and correct do not make out any case of corrupt practice or any ground under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act the petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of disclosing no cause of action. In his reply to the said application, it is denied by the petitioner that the grounds urged by him did not disclose any cause of action for challenging the election of the respondent in the bye-election. It is submitted by him that as the returned candidate i.e. the respondent failed to submit his written statement the trial of the petition has to be proceeded with as if there was no written statement on record. After hearing both the parties, it is the above said preliminary objection raised by the respondent in I.A. No. 2/89 which is being disposed of by this order.

5. Now, there is no substance in the objection raised by the petitioner that the preliminary objection of the nature raised by the respondent is not maintainable without he having first filed his written statement in respect of the allegations made in the petition. It is settled law that outside the statutory provisions of the Representation of the People Act there is no right to dispute an election. The said Ace is a complete and self-contained Cede within which any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute must be found. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure arc applicable to the extent as permissible by S.87 of the Act. The scheme of the Act would show that an election can be questioned under the statute as provided by S.80 on the grounds as conta