Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: composite application in Neelam Sonkar W/O Sri Rajendra Prasad vs Dr. Bali Ram S/O Sri. Baijnath on 14 October, 2011Matching Fragments
55. That as due to change of Electronic Voting Machines, the entire election process vitiated, therefore, the result of election of the respondent is liable to be set aside and fresh election deserves to be held in order to maintain the fairness and purity of election."
8. Application A-23 seeks dismissal of election petition under Section 86(1) for non-compliance of Sections 81 and 83. The respondent has said that election petition makes reference of Chapter 12 of Handbook of Returning Officers at Elections for General Elections of Parliament 2008, but neither the said extract of handbook has been annexed alongwith the election petition nor copy thereof has been served upon the respondent applicant. This defect constitutes non-compliance of Section 81(3) of Act 1951. He has pleaded that the documents aforesaid constitute integral part of the election petition containing material facts and particulars of election and non-supply thereof amounts to lack of disclosure of cause of action justifying dismissal of election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C. as also under Section 86(1) of Act 1951. The application also contains certain factual and legal clarifications/explanations/ submissions with respect to certain paragraphs which the applicant-respondent has prayed for striking off under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. In order to stress its further prayer for rejection of election petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, though the fourth application, i.e. paper no. A-23 is titled as having been filed under Section 86(1) of Act, 1951 but, in substance, it is a composite application under Section 86(1) as well as Order VII Rule 11 CPC.