D.RAMACHANDRAN versus R.V. JANAKIRAMAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 983 · Decided: 11-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

D.RAMACHANDRAN 
A 
v. 
R.V. JANAKIRAMAN AND ORS. 
MARCH 11, 1999 
[DR. AS. ANAND C.J., M. SRINIVASAN AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.) 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 15 Rule 1 and Order 14. 
Election Petition-Dismissal in limine-Justification--Test of-Held : 
The avennents in the petition should be assumed to be true and coult has to 
find out whether the avennents disclose a cause of action or triable issue as 
such-<:oult can not probe into the facts on the basis of the controversy raised 
in the coullter. 
Order 7 Rule 11 (a }-Election petition-Dismissal in limine-Justifica-
tion of-Returned candidate filed application for striking out palt of the 
allegations made in the election petition on the ground that the avennents in 
the election petition did not disclose a cause of action and any , triable 
issue-Held : Coult cannot dissect the the pleading into several palts and 
consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of actioli-There cannot 
be a parlial rejection of the plaint or petition--ln the circumstances of the 
case, the election petition discloses a cause of action and hence cannot be 
dismissed in limine. without a trial-Representation of the People Act, 1951, 
Ss. 81, 83 and 85. 
c 
D 
E 
Order 6 Rules 2 and 6--Election petition---Pleading~Striking out 
of-Returned candidate filed application for striking out the pleadings on the 
F 
ground that the election petition did not project any materialfacts and thereby 
any triable issue-However, there was no avennent that the election petition 
was vitiated by all or any of the defects mentioned in O. 6 R. 16-:-Held : 
Striking out palts of the pleadings, notjustified-Distinction between "material 
facts" and "full parliculars" to be kept in mind. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Material facts" and ''full palticular(-,-Meaning of. 
G 
In the general elections held to the State Legislative Assembly, the 
first respondent was declared elected. The appellant filed an election H 
983 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A petition before the High Court making the following allegations. The first 
respondent and his family were not residents of the Assembly Constituency 
in question but the first respondent managed to. get the names recorded 
as voters in the constituency. The first respondent indulged in character 
assassination against the appellant personally attacking him in TV inter-
B 
view, in printed pamphlets distributed through his agents and workers 
with his consent and knowledge and in the election campaign meetings. 
The first respondent deliberately and purposely violated the relevant rules 
" 
and regnlations. The first respondent incurred expenditure in excess of the 
permitted limit of Rs 30,000 and did not disclose all the expenses in the 
accounts. The first respondent utilised the services of Government ser-
c vants who canvassed for him in the elections. There were 3216 names in . 
the voters' list who could not have polled at all as 1455 were not available 
at the addresses mentioned, 1554 had gone out of Pondicherry and some 
of them were even out of India while 207 were dead. Though it was brought 
to the notice of the Returning Officer who had accordingly informed the 
D concerned polling officers of polling booths, 2000 of them had been shown 
to have polled their votes. The first respondent had indulged in several 
.. 
corrupt practices as a result of which the result of the election was 
,, 
materially effected. The appellant prayed for declaring the election of the 
first respondent to be void and declaring himself to be validly elected to 
the Assembly from the constituency in question. 
E 
The first respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying each 
one of the allegations made in the election petition. But there was no 
mention in the counter-affidavit that the allegations made in the election 
petition were vitiated by all or any of the defects in Order 6 Rule 16 of the 
F Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. With regard to some of the allegations made 
in the election petition, a plea was raised by the first respondent that they 
did not disclose a cause of action. 
Thereafter, the first respondent filed an application praying for 
G 
striking out certain paragraphs of the election petition and consequently 
rejecting the entire petition in limine. In the said application the first 
respondent averred that the various allegations in the election petition did 
not project any material facts and thereby any triable issue. T

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