Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.21 seconds)Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
23.
This Court in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315
at para 11, has held that: (SCC p. 324)
V.S. Achuthanandhan vs P.J. Francis And Anr on 22 March, 1999
In V.S.
Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis this Court has held, on a
conspectus of a series of decisions of this Court, that
material facts are such preliminary facts which must be
proved at the trial by a party to establish existence of a cause
of action. Failure to plead 'material facts' is fatal to the
election petition and no amendment of the pleadings is
permissible to introduce such material facts after the time-
Resurgence India vs Election Commission Of India & Anr on 13 September, 2013
Mr.Apte further submitted that the 'pohoch pavatis' given to the petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2017 01:07:45 :::
11/20 AEP-13.2015
and the applicant were clearly different and that in the 'pohoch pavati'
given to the petitioner certain columns were conspicuously absent. He
relied on the Judgments in the case of Ashraf Kokkur v/s K.V.Abdul
Khader and Others9; Resurgence India v/s Election Commission of India
and Another10; Dilip Kumar Gon v/s Durga Prasad Singh 11; Vivekanand
Giri v/s Nawal Kishor Sahi12; and Nandiesha Reddy v/s Kavitha
Mahesh13, in support of his submission.
Ashraf Kokkur vs K.V.Abdul Khader Etc on 29 August, 2014
12. Before
I proceed to decide, whether the Election Petition
discloses a cause of action or not and whether the petition ought to be
dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, it would be necessary to consider
the law in this regard. Needless to state, that the law with regard to rejection
of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, on the ground that it does not
disclose a cause of action is well settled and is no longer res integra. The
Apex Court in the case of Ashraf Kokkur v/s K.V.Abdul Khader and
Others14, has in detail, considered several Judgments and has observed in
paras 22 to 29 as under:-
Kisan Shankar Kathore vs Arun Dattatraya Sawant & Ors on 9 May, 2014
9. Learned Counsel for the applicant relied on the Judgments in
the case of Resurgence of India v/s Election Commission of India and
Another1 ; Arun Dattatray Sawant v/s Kisan Shankar Kathore 2; Kisan
Shankar Kathore v/s Arun Dattatray Sawant and Ors 3; Dhartipakar
Madan Lal Agrawal v/s Rajiv Gandhi4; Azhar Hussain v/s Rajiv Gandhi5;
Mohan Rawale vs Damodar Tatyaba on 6 August, 1992
"22. After all, the inquiry under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC is only as to
whether the facts as pleaded disclose a cause of action and not
14 (2015) 1 SCC 129
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2017 01:07:45 :::
14/20 AEP-13.2015
complete cause of action. The limited inquiry is only to see whether
the petition should be thrown out at the threshold. In an election
petition, the requirement Under Section 83 of the RP Act is to provide
a precise and concise statement of material facts. The expression
''material facts'' plainly means facts pertaining to the subject-matter
and which are relied on by the election petitioner. If the party does not
prove those facts, he fails at the trial (see Philipps v. Philipps (1878)
LR 4 QBD 127 (CA), (QBD p. 133); Mohan Rawale v. Damodar
Tatyaba (1994) 2 SCC 392, (SCC p.399, para 16)].
Hari Shanker Jain vs Sonia Gandhi on 12 September, 2001
In Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi : (2001) 8 SCC 233, a three-
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors vs Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune ... on 30 January, 2006
27. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express : (2006) 3 SCC
100, this Court at para 12 held that: (SCC p.115)
"12.... The court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to
find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does,
then the plaint cannot be rejected by the court exercising the
powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially,
whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question
of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments
made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be
correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are
required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said
purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not
the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings
relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful
default, undue influence or of the same nature. So long as the
plaint discloses some cause of action which requires
determination by the court, the mere fact that in the opinion
of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground
for rejection of the plaint."
Ponnala Lakshmaiah vs Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors on 6 July, 2012
In a recent decision in Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap
Reddy : (2012) 7 SCC 788, this Court had held at paras 17 and 29
that: (SCC pp.798 & 802)
"17.... The courts need to be cautious in dealing with
requests for dismissal of the petitions at the threshold and
exercise their powers of dismissal only in cases where even
on a plain reading of the petition no cause of action is
disclosed.