Singh, J. - (1.) This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated March 6, 1986 rejecting the appellant's election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that during the General Elections held in the year 1984, the appellant filed his nomination paper for contesting election to the Lok Sabha from 79-Hapur Parliamentary Constituency. The appellant's nomination paper was accepted and he was allotted symbol of "Lion". The appellant, Kedar Nath alias K. N. Singh Responent, and 17 other candidates contested the election. The appellant could poll only 617 votes while Kedar Nath respondent polled 255828 votes and he was declared elected. The appellant filed election petition challenging the Respondent's election on a number of grounds. The respondent appeared before the High Court, filed written statement and contested the election petition. On 10-12-1985 issues were framed thereafter the respondent made an application for rejecting the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action. A learned Single Judge of the High Court after hearing the parties at length rejected the election petition on the finding that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action. The appellant has challenged the correctness of the High Court order by means of this appeal.
(3.) The appellant who is an advocate appeared in person before us and argued his case at length. He made two submissions; firstly, he urged that under the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC after the settlement of issues. Once issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties the Court should have proceeded to record evience and decide the issues on the basis of evidence produced by the parties and the petition could not be rejected at that stage on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action. In the alternative appellant urged that the election petition disclosed cause of action which could not be disposed of summarily without recording evidence. He referred to the pleadings raised in the election petition to show that the petitioner raised a specific ground that the appellant's nomination paper had been accepted improperly by the Returning Officer which materially affected the result of election of the returned candidate. The second submission raised by the appellant was that the Returning Officer acted in violation of the proviso to Section 33(4) of the Representation of the People Act as he failed to correct entries in the appellant's, nomination paper and list of contesting candidates with regard to the petitioner's name, as a result of which, result of the election, was materially affected in so far as the returned candidate is concerned.;