RAM SUKH versus DINESH AGGARWAL

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 18-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 14 (ADDL.). S.C.R. 836 
RAM SUKH 
v. 
DINESH AGGARWAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 6128 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951: 
c 
s. 83(1)(a), proviso, ss.86 and 100(1)(d) -
State 
Legislative Assembly elections - Election petition seeking to 
declare the election of returned candidate as void on the 
ground of corrupt practices - High Court dismissing election 
petition at preliminary stage for lack of material facts and 
0 particulars and for want of requisite affidavit in support of 
a/legations of corrupt practices - HELD: All facts which are 
essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action 
must be pleaded and omission of a single material fact would 
amount to disobedience of the mandate of s.83(1)(a) -
E Proviso to s.83(1)(a) mand12tes that election petition alleging 
corrupt practices must be accompanied by an affidavit in 
support of such allegation - Election petition must be 
dismissed if it suffers from any such vice - In the instant case, 
pleading is vague and does not spell out as to how the 
election results were materially affected - The facts stated in 
F election petition fall short of being "materiai facts" as 
contemplated ins. 83(1)(a) to constitute a complete cause of 
action in relation to allegation uls 100(1)(d)(iv) - View taken 
by High Court upheld - s.83(1)(a) and (b) - Expressions 
"material facts" and "particulars" - Connotation of and 
G distinction between - Explained. 
s.87 - Scope of- HELD: By virtue of s.87, provisions of 
CPC apply to trial of an election petition and in the absence 
of anything to the ·contrary in the Act, court trying an election 
H 
836 
,. 
RAM SUKH v. DINESH AGGARWAL 
837 
petition can act in exercise of its power under CPC including 
A 
0.6, r.16 and 0. 7, r.11- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- 0. 
6, r.16, 0.7, r.11. 
WORDS AND PHRASES: 
Expressions "material facts" and "particulars" -
B 
Connotation of in the context of Election Law. 
The appellant was a candidate for election to the 
State Legislative Assembly of Uttrakhand held on 
21.2.2007. He lost the election to respondent no. 1. He c 
filed an election petition before the High Court 
challenging the election of the returned candidate. 
Respondent no. 1 filed an application under 0. 6, rr. 16 
and 17 and 0. 7, r. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
read with s.86 of the Representation of the People Act, D 
1951 raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability 
of writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the petition 
was lacking in material facts and particulars and was also 
defective for want of requisite affidavit in support of 
allegations of. corrupt practice and that since it did not E 
disclose any cause of action, it deserved to be dismissed 
at the threshold. It was contended that on account of 
failure on the part of the election petitioner to file an 
affidavit in support of the allegations, the entire election 
petition was liable to be dismissed; and allegations of 
F 
corrupt practices made in paragraphs 14, 17, 19, 20 as 
21 also the ground D and E of the election petition were 
liable to be struck off. The High Court dismissed the 
election petition. 
... 
In the instant appeal filed by the election petitioner, 
G 
it was contended for the appellant that the High Court 
should not have exercised its power either under 0. 6, r. 
16 or 0. 7, r.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to 
reject the election petition at the threshold. It was 
H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A submitted: (i) that even if the election petition was liable 
to be dismissed, it should have been dismissed only after 
" 
affording an opportunity to the election petitioner to 
adduce evidence in support of allegation in the petition 
and (ii) that rejection of petition at the threshold would 
B amount to reading into sub-section (1) of s.86 an 
additional ground. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In Jagan Nath*, this Court has held that the 
c statutory requirement of election/law must be strictly 
observed; that the election contest is not an action at law 
or a suit in equity, but is purely statutory proceeding 
unknown to the common law and that court possesses 
no common law power. It is also well settled that the 
D success of a candidate who has won at an election 
. should not be lightly interfered with and any petition 
~ 
seeking such interference must strictly conform to 

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