JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. Heard Sri R. C. Srivastava, assisted by Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel.
2. The petitioner was declared elected as Adhyaksha, Nagar Palika Parishad, Konch on 27.1.1995. The respondent No. 2, Dr. Avadh Behari filed a petition to challenge the election of the petitioner under the provisions of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said petition is pending before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Oral. The petitioner filed a written statement. Besides him. the Returning Officer has also filed a written statement. Issues have been framed in the case. Learned Additional District Judge has decided the Issue Nos. 6. 7. 8 and 9 as preliminary issues by a composite order dated 23.3.1999. The petitioner had also filed an application with the prayer that the election petition be dismissed under Order VII. Rule 11 read with Section 151, C.P.C. on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements. A copy of the application filed by the petitioner is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The controversy raised in the aforesaid application was the subject-matter of the preliminary issue No. 7 which has been decided by the Tribunal below against present petitioner and in favour of the election petitioner-respondent No, 2.
3. Sri R. C. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order passed by the Court below does not comprehend correct legal position and that it would be a futile exercise to proceed with an election petition, which otherwise is not maintainable on account of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 20 of the Act. It was pointed out that the election petition does not disclose the material facts and cause of action ; that it does not contain a concise statement of material facts as required under the law and that the view taken by the Court below is contrary to the well embedded principles of law laid down by the apex court as well as this Court. It was pointed out that the various provisions with regard to the election petition contained in the U. P. Municipalities Act are part materia with various provisions contained in Chapter II of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1951'). particularly Sections 80 to 84 and, therefore, the law laid down by the apex court as well as this Court with reference to the provisions of the Act of 1951 is applicable to the election petition filed under the Act. Section 83 of the Act of 1951 deals with the contents of petition. It provides that :
"(1) An election petition-
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies ;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice ; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings."
A reference was made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari and others, AIR 1970 SC 276 ; Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind and others, AIR 1975 SC 2117 ; N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai and others, AIR 1980 SC 206 and Azhar Hussan v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 as well as decisions of this Court in Ram Singh v. Kazi Mohiuddin and others. AIR 1988 All 210 and Koshi Nath Misra v. Vikramaditya Pandey and others. AIR 1993 All 32. The first three decisions of the apex court relate to the question of inspection of ballot papers and the requirement to be satisfied before the Tribunal can permit the inspection. It was held that the basic requirement to be satisfied before the election Tribunal can permit the inspection of ballot papers are (i) that the petition for setting aside elections must contain adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case and (ii) the Tribunal must be, prima facie. satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties, inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. The material facts required to be stated are those facts which can be considered as materials supporting the allegations made. In other words, they must be such facts as to afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition. if an election petitioner in his election petition gives some figures as to the rejection of valid votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the same must not be considered as an adequate statement of material facts when the petitioner has not disclosed in his petition the basis on which he arrived at those figures. This Court has also taken the consistent view that an election petition without material facts and material particulars relating to a corrupt practice is no election petition at all. In Ram Singh's case (supra) this Court has taken the view that the word 'material' in Section 83 shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. So the material facts are those which constitute a complete cause of action. it means that no petition can be said to have disclosed full cause of action, if it is bereft of the material facts. The material facts are necessary to present a composite picture of cause of action. The absence of cause of action and in the absence of cause of action, a petition which is governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
4. Rajiv Gandhi's case (supra). has been cited with a view to forestall the submission on behalf of the other side that the power to reject an election petition under Order VII. Rule 11, C.P.C. should not be exercised at the threshold which in substance means that the Court must proceed with the trial, record the evidence, and only after the trial of the election petition is concluded that the power under the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing appropriately with the defective petition which does not disclose cause of action should be exercised. It was held by the Apex Court that the whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action.
5. I have thoroughly studied the aforesaid decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No dispute can possibly be raised about the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. It is true that if the material facts which constitute a complete cause of action, have not been stated, it would not be an election petition in the eye of law and consequently it is liable to be rejected outright by invoking the provisions of Order VII. Rule 11. C.P.C. Now. at the touch-stone of the various decisions laying down the various principles of law governing the matter, let us consider the question whether prima facie the election petition filed by the respondent No. 2 states contents of concise statement of the material facts on which the election petition relies. A copy of the election petition has been brought on record of this writ petition as Annexure-1. In paragraph 3 of the election petition, the number of votes polled by each one of the contesting candidates have been specified. There was a narrow margin of 7 votes only polled by the present petitioner who was declared elected and the election petitioner respondent No. 2. In sub-paras (a) to (i) of paragraph 4. various material facts have been set out. In order to illustrate the point, a reference may be made to the statement of the material facts in some of the sub-
paragraph. in para 4 (a) a discrepancy between number of votes polled and the number of votes counted has been pointed out. According to the election petitioner, 286 ballot papers were found in excess at the time of the counting. In para 4 (b), it is mentioned that at the time of first round of counting, it was announced by the Returning Officer that the election petitioner had polled 1277 votes but in the final list, he was shown to have secured 1267 votes. In para 4 (c). It is alleged that the Returning Officer has prepared and signed two election returns but in the first election return, the present petitioner was alleged to have received only 16 votes while in the second return, he was shown to have received 1113 votes. A number of other Irregularities with regard to tender votes, acceptance of invalid ballot papers and illegal rejection of the votes and bungling in the preparation of election results have been specified. From the various averments made in the election petition, it is evident that the election petition clearly contains concise statement of the material facts on which the respondent No. 2. the election petitioner, places reliance. One cannot escape from the conclusion that a composite picture which emerges from the averments of the material facts made in the election petition gives rise to cause of action to file an election petition. As said above, the material facts are those which constitute a complete cause of action. It is not a case in which it can be held that the respondent No. 2 has not disclosed the cause of action or from the bundle of the material facts disclosed, no cause of action is made out. An election petition can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. only when no cause of action has been set out. The learned Tribunal below has recorded a categorical finding that the petition, contains a concise statement of all material facts and circumstances, as required under the law and these facts constitute a complete cause of action. This finding of the learned Tribunal below is based on the disclosure of material facts contained in the election petition. This finding is not vitiated on account of any illegality or irregularity.
6. It would not be out of place to mention that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 (a), C.P.C.. are attracted if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found manifestly vexatious, merit-less, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, that the plaint is to be rejected. To find out as to whether a plaint discloses cause of action or not. Court has to look into the allegations made in the plaint and should assume them to be correct for the time being and then to ascertain whether those allegations disclose a cause of action or not. It is well settled proposition of law that rejection of the plaint for nondisclosure of the cause of action is to take place at the threshold. In a case where the defendant has entered appearance ; has filed written statement ; issues have been framed and some of the issues have been decided as a preliminary Issue, it would not be proper to invoke the jurisdiction under Order VII. Rule 11, C.P.C.. to reject the plaint. After the issues are framed, and the evidence of the parties led, the suit is to 'be dismissed. There are different consequences of the 'rejection' of the plaint and 'dismissal' of the suit. After a plaint has been rejected, a second or separate suit may be filed again on the same cause of action subject, of course, to the plea of limitation and other restrictions. Where the suit is dismissed after the issues are framed and evidence of the parties is recorded, the second suit on the same cause of action would be barred. In the instant case, the election petition had reached an advance stage, inasmuch as, the preliminary Issues have been decided. Now the other issues touching the merits of the case have to be decided in view of the averments of the parties and the evidence which may be led by them in support of their respective contentions. For this reason also, it would not be proper to reject the election petition on the alleged ground that it does not disclose the material facts to constitute the. cause of action.
7. In the conspectus of the above facts, the present writ petition is not well merited. It is accordingly dismissed. It is. however, directed that the learned Tribunal below shall proceed to decide the election petition with all expedition. Preferably by 31st July, 1999.