J U D G M E N T

[1] Heard Mr. H S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Mrs. L. Ayangleima, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.

The present application had been filed under Order-VI Rule-16 read with Section 151 of the CPC with the prayer for striking off paragraphs No. 14 to 17 of the Election Petition No. 1 of 2022 filed by the respondent No. 1 herein.

[3]

[2] It has been contended by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant that the pleadings made in paragraphs No. 14 to 17 of the election petition are liable to be struck off as the same are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious in nature, which tends to prejudice, embarrass the applicant. It has also been submitted that the election petitioner is using the election petition as a tool to advance his political goals by soiling the clean image of the applicant/ Returned Candidate and the same is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court in order to keep himself relevant in the eyes of the voters and to ventilate his humiliation and heart burnt of being defeated in the hands of the applicant/

Returned Candidate.

[3] The learned senior counsel further submitted that Order-VI Rule-16 of the CPC, 1908 provides for the court to order that any matter in any pleadings before it be struck off on the grounds specified under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and that the very purpose of the Rule is to ensure that parties to a legal proceeding are entitled ex debito justitiae to have the case against them presented in an intelligible form so that they may neither be embarrassed nor lost in meeting the case.

[4] It has also been contended on behalf of the applicant that the pleadings made in paragraphs No. 14 to 17 of the election petition lacks material facts constituting the cause of action required under various provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and does not fulfil the mandatory requirement of law. The learned counsel submitted that the election petition does not contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and therefore does not disclose a triable issue or [4]

cause of action and that the so called specific allegations of corrupt practice as contained in paragraphs No. 14 to 17 does not meet out the basic requirements, which could constitute corrupt practice or a cause of action as required by law. It has also been contended that the material facts as to how the information came to the knowledge of the election petitioner pertaining to various incidences, as mentioned in the referred paragraphs, is absolutely missing, whereas the same is preliminary requirement for maintainability of the election petition. The learned senior counsel contended that even the material particulars are absent in the election petition and thus it suffers from non-compliance of the provisions contained under Section 81 and 83 of the RP Act, 1951.

[5] It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the averments made in the election petition are completely vague and lacking in material particulars and as such, no trial or enquiry is permissible on the basis of such vague, indefinite, imprecise averments and that the non-disclosure of the cause of action, material facts and violation of Section 81 and 83 of the RP Act, 1951 and Rule-94 A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 makes paragraphs No. 14 to 17 of the election petition unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and the same tends to cause prejudice and embarrassment to the respondent No. 1 and accordingly, the said paragraphs No. 14 to 17 deserves to be strike off in the interest of justice.

[6] Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the election petition had been filed in the context of the gros