Laxman Bag vs Giriraj Singh Majhi

Ananda Chandra Behera, J

This Interlocutory Application has arisen out of Election Petition No.12 of 2024.

The Respondent (Returned Candidate) in Election Petition No.12 of 2024 has filed this I.A. under Order 6 Rule 16 of the C.P.C.,1908 praying for striking out Para Nos.8(A) to 8(M) of the Election Petition on the ground that, the averments made in Para Nos.8(A) to 8(M) of the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 are scandalous, vexatious, unnecessary and the same have been averred by the Election Petitioner only in order to delay the fair trial of the Election Case.

To which, the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Election Petitioner) objected stating that, the averments made in Para Nos.8(A) to 8(M) of the Election Petition by the Election Petitioner are in accordance with the Provisions of Sections 81, 82, 83, 84 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in order to substantiate his prayers made in the Election Petition. For which, the averments/pleadings made in Para Nos.8(A) to 8(M) in the Election Petition cannot be striked out as per Order 6 Rule 16 of the C.P.C, 1908. Because, the said averments have ample nexus/relation with the prayers in the Election Petition.

I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.12 of 2024) and learned Senior Counsel for the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.12 of 2024).

In Para Nos.8(A) to 8(M) of the Election Petition No.12 of 2024, it has been stated about the illegal/improper acceptance of the nomination papers of the Respondent (Returned Candidate) and non-disclosure of required particulars in his affidavits at the time of filing of his nomination.

As per law, for striking out the pleadings, the applicant must establish that, how the averments sought to be struck off are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and also to demonstrate, how the said averments may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or the same shall in otherwise be an abuse of process of the Court and the same are unnecessary.

The powers of the Courts for striking out the pleadings are extra ordinary in nature and such power must be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Arun Jaitley Vrs. Mr.Arvind Kejriwal and others reported in 2018 (Supp.) Civ.C.C. 256 (Delhi) that,

The power to strike out pleadings invoking power under Order 6 Rule 16 of the C.P.C. by the Court is extra ordinary in nature and must be exercised by Court with extreme care, caution and circumspection.

(ii) In a case between S.M.N. Abdi Vrs. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and others reported in 1989 (1) OLR 165 that,

Striking out pleadings invoking power under Order 6 Rule 16 of the C.P.C. is a serious matter and recourse should not be taken unless there are compelling reasons.

(iii) In a case between Tara Prasad Bahinipati Vrs. Rabi Narayan Nanda reported in AIR 2018 (Orissa) 4 that,

It is for the Party seeking striking of portion of the pleadings as per Order 6 Rule 16 of the C.P.C. must establish, how pleadings are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or otherwise an abuse of process of law.

(iv) In a case between Poovai and others Vrs. Rahima reported in 2022 (4) Civ.C.C. (Madras) 668 in Para No.11 that,

The pleadings, which are scandalous and frivolous can be struck off, but, the pleadings lacking in truth cannot be struck off, as the same are to be tested during trial.

(v) In a case between Mrs. A.Sreedevi and others Vrs. Wooltop Design Private Limited and others reported in 2017 (4) Civ.C.C. 849 (Madras) that,

plea regarding striking out pleadings not maintainable, when, rival contentions of parties have to be established by producing oral and documentary evidence.

(vi) In a case between The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. Vrs. Binu Ananda Khanna and others reported in 2016 (1) Civ.C.C. 598 (Delhi) (D.B) that,

If, the law is to pleadings is that, every averment constitute a step in outlining the cause of action motivating the litigation is to be taken at face value and evaluated on the basis of the materials and evidence adduced during the trial, unless either the action itself is barred or the plea is so prescribed by some law, the Court cannot preclude the trial of the matter striking out the pleadings involving under Order 6 Rule 16 of the C.P.C.

On perusal of the averments made in Para Nos.8(A) to 8(M) of the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 filed by the Election Petitioner and the prayers thereof, it appears that, the averments made in Para Nos.8(A) to 8(M) of the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 have nexus/connection with the prayers made in the Election Petition.

When, the averments made in Para Nos.8(A) to 8(M) of the Election Petition have nexus/connection with the reliefs/prayers sought for by the Election Petitioner and when, the rival contentions of the Parties can be established by producing oral and documentary evidence and when, the averments made in Para Nos.8(A) to 8(M) are not coming within the purview of Order 6 Rule 16 of the C.P.C, 1908 to be struck off, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this I.A. No.35 of 2025 filed by the Respondent/Returned Candidate in Election Petition No.12 of 2024, it is held that, this I.A. No.35 of 2025 cannot be allowed.

As such, there is no merit in the I.A. filed by Respondent/Returned Candidate in the Election Petition No.12 of 2024. The same is liable to be dismissed on contest.

In result, this I.A. filed by the Respondent in the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 is dismissed on contest.

As such, this I.A. No.35 of 2025 filed by the Respondent in the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 is disposed of finally.