See Full Document Text
(cid:315)(cid:175)ೇಷ (cid:170)ಾಜ(cid:205) ಪ(cid:294)(cid:206)(cid:144)ೆ
¨sÁU À – 4 , 25 , 2026 , 06 ) . 178
Part – IV BENGALURU, WEDNESDAY, 25, FEBRUARY, 2026 ( PHALGUNA , 06, SHAKAVARSHA, 1947) No. 178
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS SECRETARIAT (ELECTIONS)
NOTIFICATION
No. DPAR 06 CHUTHAA 2026, Bengaluru, Dated: 25th February 2026.
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
Dated: 27th January, 2026
7 Magha, 1947 (Saka)
NOTIFICATION
No. 82/KT-LA/16/2023 :- In pursuance of Section 106 (b) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission hereby publishes the
judgment/orders of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru dated : 30.10.2025 in the
Election Petition No. 16/2023
(1)2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ELECTION PETITION NO. 16 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1.SRI K.S. SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O SHANKAR SA,
NO.7/2, M.M. LANE,
COTTONPET CROSS,
BENGALURU SOUTH, CHICKPET,
BENGALURU-560053.
1. 2. SRI M.R. SHIVASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O M.S. RUKMASA,
NO.03, M.M. LANE,
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560053.
3. SRI S.K. NITYANANDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNARAJU S.N.
NO.15/3, K.V. TEMPLE STREET,
SOURASTRAPET,
BENGALURU-560053.
4. SRI GOPINATH G.R.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O G. REVANNA,
NO.46/2, BINNY MILL ROAD,
COTTONPET, BENGALURU-560053.
5. SRI NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O THAMMAIAH,
NO.24, 19TH CROSS,
NEAR MYSORE BANK,
CUBBONPET,
BENGALURU-560002.3
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KRISHNAMURTHY M.R., SRI SWAMY SHIVA PRAKASH H.,
SMT. M.S. ASHALATHA AND SMT. YOGITA MUDAKANNAVAR,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI S. GOPINATH, AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS,
S/O D.S. SUNDAR RAJAN,
NO.33, I CROSS, S.R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027.
2. SRI DINESH GUNDU RAO AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE R. GUNDU RAO,
NO.127 (159),
R.T. NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
MLA LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560 032.
3. SRI V. NARAYANASWAMY AGED
ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATAIAH,
NO.10/113, 6TH MAIN ROAD, M.C.
LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-
560 040.
4. SRI SAPTHAGIRI GOWDA A.R.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O RAMACHANDRA GOWDA,
NO.9, ICERI, 21ST CROSS,
3RDBLOCK, 4TH STAGE,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079.
5. SRI ARUN KUMAR .D
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O DOMNIC,
NO.89 CORPORATION STAFF HOUSE,
(92 HOUSES), PLATFORM ROAD,
JAKKARAYANAKERE, SESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 020.
6. SRI KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O MUDDAIAH,
NO.31, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU- 560 003.4
7. SRI S.M. DIVAKAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE S.N. MADHUKAR,
NO.168, I CROSS,
5TH MAIN, MASJID BLOCK,
MARIYAPPANAPALYA, SRIRAMPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 021.
8. SRI PRAKASH .K
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O KANNAN .D
NO.178, 69TH CROSS,
RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 010.
9. SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH,
NO.U51, ANJANEYA BLOCK, I MAIN
ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 020.
10. SRI BASAVARAJA M.D.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O DODDATHIMMAPPA .M
NO.491, I MAIN ROAD,
I “A” CROSS, NEW BINNY LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 023.
11. SRI K. STEPHEN AGED ABOUT 67
YEARS,
S/O LATE A. KANNIMUTHU,
NO.219, 9TH B MAIN,
PIPELINE ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040.
12. SRI KRISHNAIAH SETTY ESEN MALURU,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE S. NARAYANA SHETTY,
NO.50, 10TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS,
OPP. MES COLLEGE,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560003.5
13. SRI G. GAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 46
YEARS,
S/O GOVINDASWAMY,
NO.E-219, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 5TH
CROSS ROAD,
NEAR SUJATHA THEATER,
RAMACHANDRAPURAM,
BENGALURU,
BENGALURU-560021.
14. SMT. PUSHPARANI .S AGED ABOUT
43 YEARS,
W/O B. SRINIVASA,
NO.19, 3RD MAIN,
BHUWANESHWARINAGARA,
BENGALURU-560023.
15. SRI P. BASAPPACHAR, AGED ABOUT
66 YEARS,
S/O LATE PUTTABASAPPA,
NO.56, KYALASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KOTHANURU POST,
(SRK NAGAR) K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560077.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI B. RAVINDRA, BADIGER K.R. (TANUSHREE), ADVOCATES
FOR R-3;
SRI SANDEEP PATIL, SRI SWAMINI G. MOHANAMBAL, SRI ROHIT
KUMAR TIWARI, SRI B.R. SRIVATSA, ADVOCATES FOR R-4;
NOTICES TO R-1, R-7, R-8, R-9 AND R-13 ARE SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED;
V/O. DATED 04.03.2024 SERVICES OF NOTICE TO R-5, R-6, R-11,
R-14 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT;
V/O. DATED 08.08.2024 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-15 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT;
V/O. DATED 18.09.2024 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-10 AND R-12
IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS ELECTION PETITION IS PRESENTED UNDER SECTIONS
81 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT, 1951, PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND OTHER MATERIALS PERTAINING TO
THE ELECTION NO.164, GANDHINAGAR ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY
HELD ON 10.05.2023 AND RESULT DECLARED ON 13.05.2023; ORDER
FOR RECOUNTING OF VOTES IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE6
CONSTITUENCY; SET ASIDE THE ELECTION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE 16TH KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FROM NO.164,
GANDHINAGAR ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY; DECLARE THE ELECTION
RESULTS AFRESH RECOUNTING THE VOTES IN RESPECT OF THE 16TH
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FROM NO.164, GANDHINAGAR
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS
MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER ON I.A.No.2/2024
I.A. No.2/2024 is filed by respondent No.2 under Order VII
Rule 11 (a) CPC read with Section 87 of the Representation of
People Act, 1950 (‘the Act’ for short).
2. Respondent No.2 returned candidate has filed the
present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section
87 of the Act, seeking rejection of the election petition on the
ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action and it
is devoid of material facts as mandated under Sections 81, 83 and
100 of the Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the
allegation of massmalpractice or impersonation is vague and unsubstantiated.
The petitioners have failed to provide even basic particulars such as:
a) Number of votes allegedly improperly accepted;
b) Number of impersonators;
c) Identities of officials who facilitated such act;7
d) The explanation of how the result was
materially affected.
4. It is submitted that, in the absence of prima facie evidence or
identification of fraudulent acts, the plaint cannot be judicially entertained. The
petition lacks material facts required under Section 83 of the Act and hence,
discloses no cause of action. Respondent No.2 has filed an application seeking
rejection of the petition in limine and hence, the same deserves to be rejected
under Order VII Rule 11. He submits that every election petition must contain
the concise statement of material facts, which, if proved, would constitute a
complete cause of action under Section 83(1) (a) of the Act. In the absence of
such foundational pleadings, the Court has no jurisdiction to embark upon an
enquiry or to permit a roving and fishing investigation. Reliance is placed on the
following decisions:
i. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar and
others1(Kanimozhi Karunanidhi)to contend that the petition
bereft of material facts is liable to be dismissed at the
threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
ii. Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P. Joshi2(Kalyan
Singh), reiterating that ‘a fishing or roving inquiry, in an election
petition is impermissible’ when allegations are made.8
iii. Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar and
others2(Karim Uddin Barbhuiya) to contend that when no
material facts are pleaded to constitute a cause of action, the
petition must fail.
iv. Markio Tado Vs. Takam Sorang and others3
(Markio Tado) to contend that the vague assertion cannot sustain
a recount or election challenge.
v. Mahender Pratap Vs. Krishan Pal and others4(Mahender
Pratap) emphasizing that any illegality or irregularity must
be pleaded with specificity and supported by statutory
satisfactory evidence.
vi. P.H. Pujar Vs. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa and
others5(P.H. Pujar) vii. Mohan Krishna Shetty and
another Vs. Dinakar Keshav Shetty and others6(Mohan
Krishna Shetty) to submit that a small margin of votes by
itself is not a ground to direct recounting or to invalidate an
election.
viii. Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali
Shigaonkar7(Anil Vasudev)to contend that an election petition
can be summarily dismissed for non-disclosure of cause of action.9
5. On the general principles regarding governing rejection of claims,
reliance is placed on the following decisions:
i. Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed
Jalal 8(Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy)
ii. T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and
another9(T. Arivandandam)iii.K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Umar Khan
and others10
(K.Akbar)iv. Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others Vs.
Assistant
Charity Commissioner and others11(Sopan Sukhdeo).
6. It is therefore urged that the petition, containing only
speculative allegation of ‘rapport’, ‘rapport with officials’, ‘irregular
counting’, and ‘discrepancies in postal ballots’, fails to disclose any
triable issues, the petition is liable to be rejected.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners opposes
the application, contending that the petition raises serious and
triable issues relating to the irregularity in counting and
discrepancies in postal ballots, that the margin of victory being
only 105 votes, the Court ought to permit the matter to proceed
for evidence. It is submitted that at the stage of considering the
application under Order VII Rule 11, the averments in the petition10
alone must be read as a whole and the Court cannot assess their
sufficiency or merit.
8. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions
and perused the material on record.
9. The law is well settled that an election petition is a
statutory proceedings governed strictly by the provisions of the
Act. Section 83(1) (a) reads as under:
“83. Contents of petition.—(1) An election petition—
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on
which the petitioner relies;
10. Under Section 83 (1) (a), the petition must contain
material facts constituting a complete cause of action, failure to do
so, is fatal and attracts Order VII Rule 11 CPC as held by the Apex
Court in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi(supra) in paragraph Nos.23
and 28 as under:
“23. The law so far developed and settled by this
Court with regard to the non-compliance of the
requirement of Section 83(1)(a) of the EP Act, namely -
“an Election petition must contain a concise statement of
material facts on which the petitioner relies”, is that such
non-compliance of Section 83(1)(a) read with Order VII,
Rule 11, CPC, may entail dismissal of the Election Petition
right at the threshold. “Material facts” are facts which if
established would give the petitioner the relief asked for.
The test required to be answered is whether the court
could have given a direct verdict in favour of the election11
petitioner in case the returned candidate had not appeared
to oppose the Election petition on the basis of the facts
pleaded in the petition. They must be such facts as would
afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition and
would constitute the cause of action as understood in the
Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Material facts would include
positive statement of facts as also positive statement of a
negative fact.
x x x
28. The legal position enunciated in aforestated
cases may be summed up as under:—
i. Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act, 1951 mandates that an
Election petition shall contain a concise statement of
material facts on which the petitioner relies. If
material facts are not stated in an Election petition,
the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground
alone, as the case would be covered by Clause (a) of
Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code.
ii. The material facts must be such facts as would afford
a basis for the allegations made in the petition and
would constitute the cause of action, that is every fact
which it would be necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner
to prove, if traversed in order to support his right to
the judgment of court. Omission of a single material
fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and
the statement of plaint would become bad.
iii. Material facts mean the entire bundle of facts which
would constitute a complete cause of action. Material
facts would include positive statement of facts as also
positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary.12
iv. In order to get an election declared as void under
Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election
petitioner must aver that on account of non-
compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or
of the Act or any rules or orders made under the Act,
the result of the election, in so far as it concerned the
returned candidate, was materially affected.
v. The Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot
be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it
given to a person who uses it as a handle for
vexatious purpose.
vi. An Election petition can be summarily dismissed on
the omission of a single material fact leading to an
incomplete cause of action, or omission to contain a
concise statement of material facts on which the
petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, in
exercise of the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of
Order VII CPC read with the mandatory requirements
enjoined by Section 83 of the RP Act.”
and in Anil Vasudev’s case (supra) at paragraph
Nos.50, 51, 57, 58, 59, and 61 as under:
“50. The position is well settled that an election
petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish
the cause of action in exercise of the power under the
Code of Civil Procedure. Appropriate orders in exercise of
powers under the Code can be passed if the mandatory
requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the Act to
incorporate the material facts in the election petition are
not complied with.13
51. This Court in Samant N. Balkrishna case has
expressed itself in no uncertain terms that the omission of
a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause
of action and that an election petition without the material
facts relating to a corrupt practice is not an election
petition at all. In Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia the
law has been enunciated that all the primary facts which
must be proved by a party to establish a cause of action
or his defence are material facts. In the context of a
charge of corrupt practice it would mean that the basic
facts which constitute the ingredients of the particular
corrupt practice alleged by the petitioner must be specified
in order to succeed on the charge. Whether in an election
petition a particular fact is material or not and as such
required to be pleaded is dependent on the nature of the
charge levelled and the circumstances of the case. All the
facts which are essential to clothe the petition with
complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to
plead even a single material fact would amount to
disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a). An
election petition therefore can be and must be dismissed
if it suffers from any such vice. The first ground of
challenge must therefore fail.
x xx
57. It is settled legal position that all “material
facts” must be pleaded by the party in support of the case
set up by him within the period of limitation. Since the
object and purpose is to enable the opposite party to know
the case he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading,
a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state
even a single material fact will entail dismissal of the
election petition. The election petition must contain a14
concise statement of “material facts” on which the
petitioner relies.
58. There is no definition of “material facts” either
in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 nor in the
Code of Civil Procedure. In a series of judgments, this
Court has laid down that all facts necessary to formulate
a complete cause of action should be termed as “material
facts”. All basic and primary facts which must be proved
by a party to establish the existence of cause of action or
defence are material facts. “Material facts” in other words
mean the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a
complete cause of action. This Court in Harkirat Singh case
tried to give various meanings of “material facts”. The
relevant para 48 of the said judgment is reproduced as
under: (SCC pp. 526-27)
“48. The expression ‘material facts’ has neither
been defined in the Act nor in the Code. According to
the dictionary meaning, ‘material’ means
‘fundamental’, ‘vital’, ‘basic’, ‘cardinal’, ‘central’,
‘crucial’, ‘decisive’, ‘essential’, ‘pivotal’,
‘indispensable’, ‘elementary’ or ‘primary’. [Burton's
Legal Thesaurus (3rdEdn.), p. 349.] The phrase
‘material facts’, therefore, may be said to be those
facts upon which a party relies for its claim or defence.
In other words, ‘material facts’ are facts upon which
the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's
defence depends. What particulars could be said to be
‘material facts’ would depend upon the facts of each
case and no rule of universal application can be laid
down. It is, however, absolutely essential that all basic
and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by
the party to establish the existence of a cause of15
action or defence are material facts and must be
stated in the pleading by the party.”
59. In the context of a charge of corrupt practice,
“material facts” would mean all basic facts constituting the
ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged,
which the petitioner (the respondent herein) is bound to
substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. It is
also well settled that if “material facts” are missing they
cannot be supplied after expiry of period of limitation for
filing the election petition and the pleading becomes
deficient.
x x x
61. The legal position has been crystallised by a
series of the judgments of this Court that all those facts
which are essential to clothe the election petitioner with a
complete cause of action are “material facts” which must
be pleaded, and the failure to place even a single material
fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of Section
83(1)(a) of the Act.”
11. Upon the perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the
petitioners have not disclosed any material facts or practices of
corrupt or illegal practices alleged to have been committed during
the election process. The entire petition proceeds on vague
assertion that certain BBMP officials, had ‘rapport’, with the
returned candidate and that, ‘irregularities occurred during
counting’. No names of the officers, polling station numbers, dates,
or any specific acts constituting the alleged irregularities during
counting have been furnished. There is also no pleading as to how
the alleged irregularities materially affected the result of the
election. Under Section 81 of the Act, an election petition must be
presented within 45 days and must comply with Section 83 which16
requires under clause (a), a concise statement of material or facts,
clause (b) full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged including
names, dates and places, and clause (c) verification in the manner
laid down in the CPC.
12. The present petition does not satisfy these required
mandatory requirements. As already stated, it does not contain
full or specific details of any corrupt practice, and the pleadings
fall short of the statutory standard. Further, the petition does not
even invoke a valid ground under Section 100 of the Act. Section
100 (1)
(b) of the Act reads as under:
“100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.—4
[(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of the High
court is of opinion—
Xxx xxx
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned
candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the
consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or”
13. The mere statement does not attract any of the
provisions of sub-clause (b), (c) and (d) of Section 100 of the Act.
The mere statement that there was a narrow margin of 105 votes,
without supporting particulars, cannot by itself, justify a recount
or annulment of election. The Apex Court has consistently held
that the absence of material facts in an election petition is fatal at
the threshold and in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi,Kalyan Singh
Chouhan and Anil Vasudev, the Apex Court has held that the
election petition, in the absence of material, has to be dismissed.
Applying the principle stated supra, the petition fails to state the17
material facts as required under Section 83 (1) (a) of the Act, no
full particulars of corrupt practice are furnished as per Section 83
(1) (b) of the Act. The pleadings do not disclose any grounds under
Section 101 for declaring the election void. The averments are
vague, indefinite, and speculative and are intended to invite a
fishing enquiry, which is impermissible in law. The Apex Court in
the case of T. Arivandandamhas held at paragraph No.5 as
under:
“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in
condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the
process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly
resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the
judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the
suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court,
Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law
in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember
that if on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the
plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should
exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. taking
care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled.
And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause
of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining
the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist
Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial
courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at
the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down
at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful
enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered
against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost
realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi:
“It is dangerous to be too good.””18
14. In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra
Murthy at paragraph No.7 has as held as under:
“7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11
if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled.
It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of
the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into
for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint
only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint,
it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and
meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue,
the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate
civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions
enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of
power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to.
The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to
find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action
or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to
observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred
by any law, would always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The averments in the written
statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are
wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the
defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the
allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a
whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is
barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the
application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and
the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If
clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a
cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at theR.N.I. No. KARBIL/2001/47147 POSTAL REGN. No. RNP/KA/BGS/2202/2017-19
Licensed to post without prepayment WPP No. 297
19
earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier
stage.”
15. In light of the settled proposition of law, that when a
petition does not disclose any cause of action, it is liable to be
rejected under Section 86 (1) of the Act read with Order VII Rule
11 (a) and (d) CPC. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the
following:
ORDER
i. I.A.No.2/2024-application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is
hereby allowed.
ii. The election petition stands rejected for nondisclosure of material
facts and absence of cause of action.
Consequently, all the pending interlocutory applications stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
_____________________ JUSTICE
K.S. HEMALEKHA
By Order,
( PAWAN DIWAN)
SECRETARY
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
By order and in the name of the
Governor of Karnataka
(MADHU A.C)
Under Secretary to Government
D.P.A.R (Elections).
[
ಮುದ(cid:206)ಕರು (cid:178)ಾಗೂ ಪ(cid:206)(cid:144)ಾಶಕರು:- ಸಂಕಲ(cid:163)ಾ(cid:297)(cid:144)ಾ(cid:312)ಗಳ(cid:133), ಕ(cid:163)ಾ(cid:143)ಟಕ (cid:170)ಾಜ(cid:205)ಪತ(cid:206), ಸ(cid:144)ಾ(cid:143)(cid:312) (cid:144)ೇಂದ(cid:206) ಮುದ(cid:206)(cid:158)ಾಲಯ, (cid:166)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:136)ರು