256
THE GAZE I I OF INDIA : JULY 2, 2005/ASADHA 11, 1927
[PART H—SEC. 3(iii)]
of action or from the statement made in the petition to be
barred by any Law for the time being or if there is failure
to comply with certain statutory provisions. There is clear
distinction between the full particulars and also the
material facts and the Court cannot dissect pleadings into
several parts and struck out a portion which does not
disclose the cause of action. The election petition has to
be read on the whole and cannot be read in isolation to
suit the convenience of the applicant. A perusal of the
affidavit of the applicant would indicate that he has not
set out any detail how the election petition filed by the
first respondent is an abuse of process of the Court. On
the contrary, the first respondent is in a position to
substantiate the materials, which he has placed before
the Court at the time of trial by letting in oral and
documentary evidence. As a matter of fact, the tenants
who have been in lawful possession of the property have
been forcefully driven out from the premises with a view
to erase the evidence. Hence, the applicant is not entitled
to any indulgence of this Court. The applicant cannot
contend by any stretch of imagination that the allegations
which the first respondent has made in the election
petition are fraudulent or vexations and are concocted for
the purpose of election petition. The first respondent was
conscious about the duties and obligations enjoined upon
him and with a sense of responsibility only, he has made
the allegations against the applicant in the election peition.
The allegations that the first respondent has not disclosed
the source or materials to substantiate the plea of corrupt
practice indulged by the applicant, at this stage would be
prematured. The applicant should first of all file his
objections to the main election petition and the Court has
to necessarily formulate the issues and thereafter deal
with the matter in accordance with law and in the light of
the pleadings and in the light of the documents that may
be placed before this Court. The present application has
been taken out by the applicant solely with a view to
confuse the mind of the Court and to mislead the Court
with regard to the various provisions of Law, more to,
Sections 83(1)(a) and 86 of the RP Act. The allegations
made by the first respondent as against the applicant
with regard to the assets and other income of Venkata
Naicker Trust and how they have been utilised by the
applicant for meeting the poll expenses would be
substatniated by him with cogent facts and evidence at
the time of trial. It is rather strange that a political leader
of a National Party, in which he was holding a very
important position as a Working President of the Tamil
Nadu Unit till recently, would contend before this Court
that he is a permanent resident of No. 161, Kutchery Road,
Erode and not having a telephone service connection in
the said premises prior to the impugned proceedings which
would manifestly prove and establish the falsehood of
the claim of the applicant, which has to be necessarily
rejected and thrown out at the threshold in view of the
fact that the applicant has deliberately averred a false
statement in paragraphs 9 to 11 of his affidavit filed in
support of the present application. There is no reason for
the first respondent to make out a false allegation or
furnish incorrect particulars or details to this Court about
the applicant either to mislead or to confuse the minds of
the Court. On the contrary, the materials, which the first
respondent has placed before this Court are tenable and
sustainable and as such they cannot be brushed aside
just like that as contended by the applicant. There were
criminal cases against the applicant and the allegations
which the first respondent has made in the election
petition relates only to the proceedings initiated as against
him for various offences committed by him under the
Indian Penal Code and has he has been convicted and
sentenced by various Courts and those are matters to be
gone into only at the time of trial as and when the first
respondent places necessary evidence to substantiate
the statements made by him in the main election petition.
The election petition filed by the first respondent contains
necessary averments, which would lead to irresistible
conclusion of a valid cause of action which would result
in the void allegations of the 1st applicant which cannot
be contended by any stretch of imagination by the
applicant that there is no valid cause of action or the
petition does not disclose any valid cause of action for
institution of the present proceedings under Sections 80,
80-A, 100 (1) (b), 100 (1) (d), 101 and 123 of the RP Act.
The averments made by the applicant in para-12 of his
affidavit that he has furnished all the material particulars
at the time of filing his nomination papers before the 12th
respondent are per se false and incorrect to the knowledge
of the applicant and the said statement has been made
solely with a view to confuse the mind of this Court and
side track the issues involved in the main election petition.
The applicant herein, instead of filing counter statement
in defence of his claim to the main election petition had
chosen to file the present application merely taking the
various allegations made by the first respondent alleging
as if they have been levelled against the applicant without
any basis or substance of proof. The Court has to
necessarily take into consideration the pleadings in
entirety and the applicant cannot expect the Court to
read the pleadings in isolation. When the petition filed
by the first respondent would raise a plausible, arguable
cause at the time of trial, it cannot be considered by any
stretch of imagination that the petition do not disclose
any valid cause of action for institution of the present
proceedings. The applicant has not filed any necessary
relevant particulars namely proof of residence and
supporting documents such as cooking gas connection,
