DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL versus RAJIV GANDHI

DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL versus RAJIV GANDHI

The High Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction to strike out defective pleadings and reject the election petition under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the petition did not disclose any cause of action regarding corrupt practices under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Vague and general allegations lacking material facts and particulars do not constitute cause of action; courts are empowered to strike out such pleadings even before written statement is filed, and no legal obligation arises to direct amendment or grant time sua sponte after limitation has expired.

Parties
Appellant: Dhartjpakar Madan Lal Agarwal; Respondent: Rajiv Gandhi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 May 1987
Procedural Posture
Election Petition Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Striking Out of Pleadings, Jurisdiction Under Representation of the People Act, Amendment of Election Petition, Cause of Action in Election Petitions
Election Law Civil Procedure Corrupt Practices Striking Out of Pleadings Jurisdiction Under Representation of the People Act Amendment of Election Petition Cause of Action in Election Petitions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dhartjpakar Madan Lal Agarwal

Appellant

Rajiv Gandhi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court had jurisdiction to strike out pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reject election petition under Order VII Rule 11 before written statement was filed
  2. 2 Whether election petition disclosed cause of action regarding corrupt practices under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was deprived of opportunity to amend the petition

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction to strike out defective pleadings and reject the election petition under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the petition did not disclose any cause of action regarding corrupt practices under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Vague and general allegations lacking material facts and particulars do not constitute cause of action; courts are empowered to strike out such pleadings even before written statement is filed, and no legal obligation arises to direct amendment or grant time sua sponte after limitation has expired.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs quantified at Rs.2,000 payable by appellant