AJAY ARJUN SINGH versus SHARADENDU TIWARI & OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 23-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 151 
AJAY ARJUN SINGH 
v. 
SHARADENDU TIWARI & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 8254of2016) 
AUGUST 23, 2016 
(J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VL r. 16 - Striking out 
pleadings - Application u/Or. VJ, r. 16 - For striking out certain 
pleadings in election petition - Dismissed - On appeal, held: The 
purpose of the Rule is to ensure that parties to a legal proceeding 
are entitled to ex debito justitiae to have the case against them 
presented in an intelligible form - The court should exercise the 
power under the'Rule with circumspection and on the basis of 
rational principle - The averments in the election petition are 
presumed to be }actually correct until proved otherwise - In the 
present· cases, the applicant did not disclose on which grounds 
contemplated u/Or. VL r. 16, various pleadings were required to be 
struck out - He rather gave explanalion with respect to each 
allegation - The moment the court is a~ked to examine the defence 
of returned candidate in an election petition, the petition can neither 
be dismissed for want of cause of action nor any part of the pleading 
cqn be struck out u/Or. VL r. 16 - None of the pleadings except the 
pleading contained in Paragraph 14M of the election petition can 
be said to be irrelevant in the -context of the prayer in the election 
petition - Therefore, only Paragraph 14M of the election petition is 
struck out - Representation of the People Act, 195I: ' 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s. 77, Explanations 
1 and 2 -
Expenditures in connection with election - Exempted 
expenditure -
Held: While computing the expenditure in election, 
the expenditure incurred by Star Campaigner is exempted, but such 
exemption is limited only on account of travel for propagating the 
programme of the political party and that too when the travel 
expenditure is incurred by star campaigner himself - Other 
expenditures are not exempted. · 
Practice and Procedure - Preliminary objections - In Election 
petition - When to be raised- Held: Preliminary objections in election 
151 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
152 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 5 S.C.R. 
petition, if are more than one, are to be taken at the earliest point of 
time and in one go - Such course would avoid delay in adjudication 
of the election petition which are mandated to be decided within a 
period of six months - Later of such successive petitions must be 
dismissed by High Courts in limine on that count alone - Election 
Laws - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. Vl r. 16 and Or. Vil, 
r. II. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Order VI Rule 16 of CPC authorises the court to 
order that any matter in any pleading before it be struck out on 
the grounds specified under clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. Each 
one of them is a distinct ground. Clause (a) authorises the court 
to strike out the pleadings which may be (i) unnecessary, (ii) 
scandalous, (iii) frivolous, (iv) vexatious. If a pleading or part of 
it is to be struck out on the ground that it is unnecessary, the test 
to be applied is whether the allegation contained in that pleading 
is relevant and essential to grant the relief sought. 
Allegations 
which are unconnected with the relief sought in the proceeding 
fall under this category. 
Similarly, if a pleading is to be struck 
out on the ground that it is scandalous, the court must first record 
its satisfaction that the pleading is scandalous in the legal sense 
and then enquire whether such scandalous allegation is called 
for or necessary, having regard to the nature of the relief sought 
in the proceeding. The authority of the court under clause (c) is 
much wider. Obviously, such authority must be exercised with 
circumspection and on the basis of some rational principles. 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 not be 
embarrassed in meeting the case. [Paras 5 and 6)(157-D, F-G;158-
A-C) 
2.1 The allegations regarding the commission of corrupt 
practices falling under Section 123(1) of Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 are to be found in para 19 of the election petition. 
The allegations are not disputed by the appellant. He chose to 
explain his conduct. Whether the explanation is factually correct 
and, if so, what are the legal impli

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.