The affidavit discrepancies regarding property dues do not invalidate a plaint's cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which remains subject to resolution by the trial court.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed by the petitioners/defendants challenging order dated 14.10.2023 passed by 22^nd District Judge, Indore in E.P. No.02/2022 whereby learned trial court dismissed the application filed by petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/defendant, after referring to relevant provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956; M.P. Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 and Representation of Public Act, 1951, submits that columns of affidavit/verification are required to be duly filled. Learned senior counsel for petitioner/defendant submits that he filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, primarily with respect to absence of cause of action and plaint is barred by law. This application appears to have been filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC. It is submitted that information provided in the affidavit should be true/correct and no part of it should be false. Further, no material fact should be concealed.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, after referring to information provided by the petitioner/defendant with respect to immovable property of petitioner as well as her husband, submits that no material facts have been concealed and concised material facts have been stated in the affidavit/verification. All immovable properties have been disclosed and there is nothing on record to show that any tax/dues were due in the year 2022. It is also urged that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, in appropriate column, “Zero” is mentioned which indicates that no dues were pending. Material facts relating to cause of action have not been pleaded in the plaint. Application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC cannot be dismissed on the ground that suit is nearing completion. Relying upon decision delivered in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through LRs. and others, 2020 (7) SCC 366 , it is urged that it can be filed at any stage.

4. Further, there is nothing on record to show that on account of insufficient information/non-disclosure of any fact, election was materially affected. It is also not shown that information provided by petitioner is not correct to the best of knowledge and belief. To bolster his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions delivered in the cases of Ashok Jaiswal Vs. Sudhir & others, 2011 (4) MPLJ 689 ; Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar and others , 2023 SCC Online SC 573 and Pankaj Sanhvi Vs. Shankar Lalwani (EP No. 41/2019). On above grounds, it is submitted that petition be allowed and impugned order passed by trial court be set aside and respondent/plaintiff's election petition be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, after referring to plaint averments and other documents on record, submits that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only plaint averments have to be seen and entire plaint averments should be considered.

6. It is also urged that perusal of plaint averments reveals that it cannot be said that no cause of action arose. It is also urged that as per information mentioned in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC itself, it is apparent that there is discrepancy between information provided by petitioner before different forums. Further, from above, it is also apparent that property tax was pending. But, in the affidavit filed by petitioner, no such dues are shown, instead, it is shown as “Zero”. It is also urged that suit is