S.U.Khan - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) DELAY in filing counter-affidavit to the above applications is condoned and counter-affidavit is taken on record. The first two applications dated 8.l1.2004 and 17.10.2005 have been filed by respondent No. 1 the elected/returned candidate, under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The first application is quite short, it only states in para 2 that "respondent No. 1 applicant has specifically stated in Para 55 of his written statement that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action." The other application dated 17.10.2005 contains the detail. In the said application, it has been stated that election petition does not state or allege any material fact having materially affected upon the election of respondent No. 1. It has also been stated that pleadings are frivolous, fictitious, unnecessary and irrelevant and that election petition does not raise triable issue. In the application A-23, under Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. it has been stated (in Para 11) that "the main allegation of the petitioner in the election petition is that 133 votes of petitioner were improperly rejected. Petitioner has made the allegation without stating or pleading any material facts or ingredients." It has further been stated that the following details have not been given. "Serial number of ballot papers, the counting table number, the round number of counting in which the alleged irregularities was done, name of counting agents, names of the counting assistants and names of counting supervisors, the nature of objection, if any, raised and source of information and basis of allegation etc."
(3.) IN Para 13, it has further been stated that "documents annexed to the election petition show that neither the petitioner's counting agents nor the petitioner ever complained about such irregularity to any one, at any point of time. The petitioner herself filed copies of alleged complaints alongwith the election petition but none of the complaints contained any objection about improper rejection of votes on the ground of wrong marking." In this election petition, statement of learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded under Order X, Rule 2, C.P.C. to the following effect on 15.2.2007 : "Sri Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in this election petition, petitioner will press only two points firstly regarding rejection of some votes on the ground that preference was written in Roman and secondly a bundle of 50 votes was missing at the time of counting.";