(1)

Ļ¯ೇಷ ªಾಜÍ ಪĦΐೆ

PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS SECRETARIAT (ELECTIONS)

NOTIFICATION

No. DPAR 06 CHUTHAA 2026, Bengaluru, Dated: 25^th February 2026.

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.

Dated: 27^th January, 2026

7 Magha, 1947 (Saka)

NOTIFICATION

No. 82/KT-LA/16/2023 :- In pursuance of Section 106 (b) of the Representation of the

People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission hereby publishes the

judgment/orders of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru dated : 30.10.2025 in the

Election Petition No. 16/2023

¨sÁUÀ – 4

Part – IV

, 25

, 2026

, 06

)

BENGALURU, WEDNESDAY, 25, FEBRUARY, 2026 ( PHALGUNA , 06, SHAKAVARSHA, 1947)

. 178

No. 178

2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ELECTION PETITION NO. 16 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1.SRI K.S. SURESH,

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

S/O SHANKAR SA,

NO.7/2, M.M. LANE,

COTTONPET CROSS,

BENGALURU SOUTH, CHICKPET,

BENGALURU-560053.

1.

2. SRI M.R. SHIVASHANKAR

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

S/O M.S. RUKMASA,

NO.03, M.M. LANE,

GANDHINAGAR,

BENGALURU-560053.

3. SRI S.K. NITYANANDA

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

S/O KRISHNARAJU S.N.

NO.15/3, K.V. TEMPLE STREET,

SOURASTRAPET,

BENGALURU-560053.

4. SRI GOPINATH G.R.

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

S/O G. REVANNA,

NO.46/2, BINNY MILL ROAD,

COTTONPET, BENGALURU-560053.

5. SRI NATARAJ

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

S/O THAMMAIAH,

NO.24, 19^TH CROSS,

NEAR MYSORE BANK,

CUBBONPET,

BENGALURU-560002.

3

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI KRISHNAMURTHY M.R., SRI SWAMY SHIVA PRAKASH H.,

SMT. M.S. ASHALATHA AND SMT. YOGITA MUDAKANNAVAR,

ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.

SRI S. GOPINATH, AGED ABOUT 51

YEARS,

S/O D.S. SUNDAR RAJAN,

NO.33, I CROSS, S.R. NAGAR,

BENGALURU-560027.

2.

SRI DINESH GUNDU RAO AGED

ABOUT 53 YEARS,

S/O LATE R. GUNDU RAO,

NO.127 (159),

R.T. NAGAR MAIN ROAD,

MLA LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560 032.

3.

SRI V. NARAYANASWAMY AGED

ABOUT 68 YEARS,

S/O LATE VENKATAIAH,

NO.10/113, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, M.C.

LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-

560 040.

4.

SRI SAPTHAGIRI GOWDA A.R.

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

S/O RAMACHANDRA GOWDA,

NO.9, ICERI, 21^ST CROSS,

3^RDBLOCK, 4^TH STAGE,

BASAVESHWARANAGAR,

BENGALURU-560 079.

5.

SRI ARUN KUMAR .D

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

S/O DOMNIC,

NO.89 CORPORATION STAFF HOUSE,

(92 HOUSES), PLATFORM ROAD,

JAKKARAYANAKERE, SESHADRIPURAM,

BENGALURU-560 020.

6.

SRI KRISHNAIAH

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

S/O MUDDAIAH,

NO.31, 2^ND MAIN ROAD,

VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU- 560 003.

4

7.

SRI S.M. DIVAKAR

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

S/O LATE S.N. MADHUKAR,

NO.168, I CROSS,

5^TH MAIN, MASJID BLOCK,

MARIYAPPANAPALYA, SRIRAMPURAM,

BENGALURU-560 021.

8.

SRI PRAKASH .K

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

S/O KANNAN .D

NO.178, 69^TH CROSS,

RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 010.

9.

SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR AGED

ABOUT 38 YEARS,

S/O LATE SIDDAIAH,

NO.U51, ANJANEYA BLOCK, I MAIN

ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM,

BENGALURU-560 020.

10. SRI BASAVARAJA M.D.

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

S/O DODDATHIMMAPPA .M

NO.491, I MAIN ROAD,

I “A” CROSS, NEW BINNY LAYOUT,

BENGALURU-560 023.

11. SRI K. STEPHEN AGED ABOUT 67

YEARS,

S/O LATE A. KANNIMUTHU,

NO.219, 9^TH B MAIN,

PIPELINE ROAD,

VIJAYANAGAR,

BENGALURU-560040.

12. SRI KRISHNAIAH SETTY ESEN MALURU,

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

S/O LATE S. NARAYANA SHETTY,

NO.50, 10^TH MAIN, 17^TH CROSS,

OPP. MES COLLEGE,

MALLESHWARAM,

BENGALURU-560003.

5

13. SRI G. GAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 46

YEARS,

S/O GOVINDASWAMY,

NO.E-219, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 5^TH

CROSS ROAD,

NEAR SUJATHA THEATER,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM,

BENGALURU,

BENGALURU-560021.

14. SMT. PUSHPARANI .S AGED ABOUT

43 YEARS,

W/O B. SRINIVASA,

NO.19, 3^RD MAIN,

BHUWANESHWARINAGARA,

BENGALURU-560023.

15. SRI P. BASAPPACHAR, AGED ABOUT

66 YEARS,

S/O LATE PUTTABASAPPA,

NO.56, KYALASANAHALLI VILLAGE,

KOTHANURU POST,

(SRK NAGAR) K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560077.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR

SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

SRI B. RAVINDRA, BADIGER K.R. (TANUSHREE), ADVOCATES

FOR R-3;

SRI SANDEEP PATIL, SRI SWAMINI G. MOHANAMBAL, SRI ROHIT

KUMAR TIWARI, SRI B.R. SRIVATSA, ADVOCATES FOR R-4;

NOTICES TO R-1, R-7, R-8, R-9 AND R-13 ARE SERVED AND

UNREPRESENTED;

V/O. DATED 04.03.2024 SERVICES OF NOTICE TO R-5, R-6, R-11,

R-14 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT;

V/O. DATED 08.08.2024 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-15 IS HELD

SUFFICIENT;

V/O. DATED 18.09.2024 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-10 AND R-12

IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS ELECTION PETITION IS PRESENTED UNDER SECTIONS

81 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT, 1951, PRAYING

TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND OTHER MATERIALS PERTAINING TO

THE ELECTION NO.164, GANDHINAGAR ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY

HELD ON 10.05.2023 AND RESULT DECLARED ON 13.05.2023; ORDER

FOR

RECOUNTING

OF

VOTES

IN

RESPECT

OF

THE

ABOVE

6

CONSTITUENCY; SET ASIDE THE ELECTION OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT

TO THE 16^TH KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FROM NO.164,

GANDHINAGAR ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY; DECLARE THE ELECTION

RESULTS AFRESH RECOUNTING THE VOTES IN RESPECT OF THE 16^TH

KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FROM NO.164, GANDHINAGAR

ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS

MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER ON I.A.No.2/2024

I.A. No.2/2024 is filed by respondent No.2 under Order VII

Rule 11 (a) CPC read with Section 87 of the Representation of

People Act, 1950 (‘the Act’ for short).

2.

Respondent No.2 returned candidate has filed the

present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section

87 of the Act, seeking rejection of the election petition on the

ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action and it

is devoid of material facts as mandated under Sections 81, 83 and

100 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the

allegation of massmalpractice or impersonation is vague and unsubstantiated.

The petitioners have failed to provide even basic particulars such as:

a)

Number of votes allegedly improperly accepted;

b)

Number of impersonators;

c)

Identities of officials who facilitated such act;

7

d)

The explanation of how the result was

materially affected.

4. It is submitted that, in the absence of prima facie evidence or

identification of fraudulent acts, the plaint cannot be judicially entertained. The

petition lacks material facts required under Section 83 of the Act and hence,

discloses no cause of action. Respondent No.2 has filed an application seeking

rejection of the petition in limine and hence, the same deserves to be rejected

under Order VII Rule 11. He submits that every election petition must contain

the concise statement of material facts, which, if proved, would constitute a

complete cause of action under Section 83(1) (a) of the Act. In the absence of

such foundational pleadings, the Court has no jurisdiction to embark upon an

enquiry or to permit a roving and fishing investigation. Reliance is placed on the

following decisions:

i.

Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar and

others¹(Kanimozhi Karunanidhi)to contend that the petition

bereft of material facts is liable to be dismissed at the

threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

ii.

Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P. Joshi²(Kalyan

Singh), reiterating that ‘a fishing or roving inquiry, in an election

petition is impermissible’ when allegations are made.

8

iii.

Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar and

others²(Karim Uddin Barbhuiya) to contend that when no

material facts are pleaded to constitute a cause of action, the

petition must fail.

iv.

Markio Tado Vs. Takam Sorang and others³

(Markio Tado) to contend that the vague assertion cannot sustain

a recount or election challenge.

v.

Mahender Pratap Vs. Krishan Pal and others⁴(Mahender

Pratap) emphasizing that any illegality or irregularity must

be pleaded with specificity and supported by statutory

satisfactory evidence.

vi.

P.H. Pujar Vs. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa and

others⁵(P.H. Pujar) vii. Mohan Krishna Shetty and

another Vs. Dinakar Keshav Shetty and others⁶(Mohan

Krishna Shetty) to submit that a small margin of votes by

itself is not a ground to direct recounting or to invalidate an

election.

viii.

Anil

Vasudev

Salgaonkar

Vs.

Naresh

Kushali

Shigaonkar⁷(Anil Vasudev)to contend that an election petition

can be summarily dismissed for non-disclosure of cause of action.

9

5. On the general principles regarding governing rejection of claims,

reliance is placed on the following decisions:

i.

Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed

Jalal ⁸(Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy)

ii.

T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and

another⁹(T. Arivandandam)iii.K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Umar Khan

and others¹⁰

(K.Akbar)iv.

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others Vs.

Assistant

Charity Commissioner and others¹¹(Sopan Sukhdeo).

6.

It is therefore urged that the petition, containing only

speculative allegation of ‘rapport’, ‘rapport with officials’, ‘irregular

counting’, and ‘discrepancies in postal ballots’, fails to disclose any

triable issues, the petition is liable to be rejected.

7.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners opposes

the application, contending that the petition raises serious and

triable issues relating to the irregularity in counting and

discrepancies in postal ballots, that the margin of victory being

only 105 votes, the Court ought to permit the matter to proceed

for evidence. It is submitted that at the stage of considering the

application under Order VII Rule 11, the averments in the petition

10

alone must be read as a whole and the Court cannot assess their

sufficiency or merit.

8.

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions

and perused the material on record.

9.

The law is well settled that an election petition is a

statutory proceedings governed strictly by the provisions of the

Act. Section 83(1) (a) reads as under:

“83. Contents of petition.—(1) An election petition—

(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on

which the petitioner relies;

10. Under Section 83 (1) (a), the petition must contain

material facts constituting a complete cause of action, failure to do

so, is fatal and attracts Order VII Rule 11 CPC as held by the Apex

Court in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi(supra) in paragraph Nos.23

and 28 as under:

“23. The law so far developed and settled by this

Court with regard to the non-compliance of the

requirement of Section 83(1)(a) of the EP Act, namely -

“an Election petition must contain a concise statement of

material facts on which the petitioner relies”, is that such

non-compliance of Section 83(1)(a) read with Order VII,

Rule 11, CPC, may entail dismissal of the Election Petition

right at the threshold. “Material facts” are facts which if

established would give the petitioner the relief asked for.

The test required to be answered is whether the court

could have given a direct verdict in favour of the election

11

petitioner in case the returned candidate had not appeared

to oppose the Election petition on the basis of the facts

pleaded in the petition. They must be such facts as would

afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition and

would constitute the cause of action as understood in the

Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Material facts would include

positive statement of facts as also positive statement of a

negative fact.

x

x

x

28. The legal position enunciated in aforestated

cases may be summed up as under:—

i.

Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act, 1951 mandates that an

Election petition shall contain a concise statement of

material facts on which the petitioner relies. If

material facts are not stated in an Election petition,

the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground

alone, as the case would be covered by Clause (a) of

Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code.

ii.

The material facts must be such facts as would afford

a basis for the allegations made in the petition and

would constitute the cause of action, that is every fact

which it would be necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner

to prove, if traversed in order to support his right to

the judgment of court. Omission of a single material

fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and

the statement of plaint would become bad.

iii.

Material facts mean the entire bundle of facts which

would constitute a complete cause of action. Material

facts would include positive statement of facts as also

positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary.

12

iv.

In order to get an election declared as void under

Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election

petitioner must aver that on account of non-

compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or

of the Act or any rules or orders made under the Act,

the result of the election, in so far as it concerned the

returned candidate, was materially affected.

v.

The Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot

be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it

given to a person who uses it as a handle for

vexatious purpose.

vi.

An Election petition can be summarily dismissed on

the omission of a single material fact leading to an

incomplete cause of action, or omission to contain a

concise statement of material facts on which the

petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, in

exercise of the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of

Order VII CPC read with the mandatory requirements

enjoined by Section 83 of the RP Act.”

and in Anil Vasudev’s case (supra) at paragraph

Nos.50, 51, 57, 58, 59, and 61 as under:

“50. The position is well settled that an election

petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish

the cause of action in exercise of the power under the

Code of Civil Procedure. Appropriate orders in exercise of

powers under the Code can be passed if the mandatory

requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the Act to

incorporate the material facts in the election petition are

not complied with.

13

51. This Court in Samant N. Balkrishna case has

expressed itself in no uncertain terms that the omission of

a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause

of action and that an election petition without the material

facts relating to a corrupt practice is not an election

petition at all. In Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia the

law has been enunciated that all the primary facts which

must be proved by a party to establish a cause of action

or his defence are material facts. In the context of a

charge of corrupt practice it would mean that the basic

facts which constitute the ingredients of the particular

corrupt practice alleged by the petitioner must be specified

in order to succeed on the charge. Whether in an election

petition a particular fact is material or not and as such

required to be pleaded is dependent on the nature of the

charge levelled and the circumstances of the case. All the

facts which are essential to clothe the petition with

complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to

plead even a single material fact would amount to

disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a). An

election petition therefore can be and must be dismissed

if it suffers from any such vice. The first ground of

challenge must therefore fail.

x xx

57. It is settled legal position that all “material

facts” must be pleaded by the party in support of the case

set up by him within the period of limitation. Since the

object and purpose is to enable the opposite party to know

the case he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading,

a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state

even a single material fact will entail dismissal of the

election petition. The election petition must contain a

14

concise statement of “material facts” on which the

petitioner relies.

58. There is no definition of “material facts” either

in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 nor in the

Code of Civil Procedure. In a series of judgments, this

Court has laid down that all facts necessary to formulate

a complete cause of action should be termed as “material

facts”. All basic and primary facts which must be proved

by a party to establish the existence of cause of action or

defence are material facts. “Material facts” in other words

mean the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a

complete cause of action. This Court in Harkirat Singh case

tried to give various meanings of “material facts”. The

relevant para 48 of the said judgment is reproduced as

under: (SCC pp. 526-27)

“48. The expression ‘material facts’ has neither

been defined in the Act nor in the Code. According to

the

dictionary

meaning,

‘material’

means

‘fundamental’, ‘vital’, ‘basic’, ‘cardinal’, ‘central’,

‘crucial’,

‘decisive’,

‘essential’,

‘pivotal’,

‘indispensable’, ‘elementary’ or ‘primary’. [Burton's

Legal Thesaurus (3^rdEdn.), p. 349.] The phrase

‘material facts’, therefore, may be said to be those

facts upon which a party relies for its claim or defence.

In other words, ‘material facts’ are facts upon which

the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's

defence depends. What particulars could be said to be

‘material facts’ would depend upon the facts of each

case and no rule of universal application can be laid

down. It is, however, absolutely essential that all basic

and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by

the party to establish the existence of a cause of

15

action or defence are material facts and must be

stated in the pleading by the party.”

59. In the context of a charge of corrupt practice,

“material facts” would mean all basic facts constituting the

ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged,

which the petitioner (the respondent herein) is bound to

substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. It is

also well settled that if “material facts” are missing they

cannot be supplied after expiry of period of limitation for

filing the election petition and the pleading becomes

deficient.

x

x

x

61. The legal position has been crystallised by a

series of the judgments of this Court that all those facts

which are essential to clothe the election petitioner with a

complete cause of action are “material facts” which must

be pleaded, and the failure to place even a single material

fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of Section

83(1)(a) of the Act.”

11. Upon the perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the

petitioners have not disclosed any material facts or practices of

corrupt or illegal practices alleged to have been committed during

the election process. The entire petition proceeds on vague

assertion that certain BBMP officials, had ‘rapport’, with the

returned candidate and that, ‘irregularities occurred during

counting’. No names of the officers, polling station numbers, dates,

or any specific acts constituting the alleged irregularities during

counting have been furnished. There is also no pleading as to how

the alleged irregularities materially affected the result of the

election. Under Section 81 of the Act, an election petition must be

presented within 45 days and must comply with Section 83 which

16

requires under clause (a), a concise statement of material or facts,

clause (b) full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged including

names, dates and places, and clause (c) verification in the manner

laid down in the CPC.

12. The present petition does not satisfy these required

mandatory requirements. As already stated, it does not contain

full or specific details of any corrupt practice, and the pleadings

fall short of the statutory standard. Further, the petition does not

even invoke a valid ground under Section 100 of the Act. Section

100 (1)

(b) of the Act reads as under:

“100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.—4

[(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of the High

court is of opinion—

Xxx xxx

(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned

candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the

consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or”

13. The mere statement does not attract any of the

provisions of sub-clause (b), (c) and (d) of Section 100 of the Act.

The mere statement that there was a narrow margin of 105 votes,

without supporting particulars, cannot by itself, justify a recount

or annulment of election. The Apex Court has consistently held

that the absence of material facts in an election petition is fatal at

the threshold and in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi,Kalyan Singh

Chouhan and Anil Vasudev, the Apex Court has held that the

election petition, in the absence of material, has to be dismissed.

Applying the principle stated supra, the petition fails to state the

17

material facts as required under Section 83 (1) (a) of the Act, no

full particulars of corrupt practice are furnished as per Section 83

(1) (b) of the Act. The pleadings do not disclose any grounds under

Section 101 for declaring the election void. The averments are

vague, indefinite, and speculative and are intended to invite a

fishing enquiry, which is impermissible in law. The Apex Court in

the case of T. Arivandandamhas held at paragraph No.5 as

under:

“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in

condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the

process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly

resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the

judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the

suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court,

Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law

in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember

that if on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the

plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the

sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should

exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. taking

care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled.

And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause

of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining

the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist

Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial

courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at

the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down

at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful

enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered

against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost

realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the

assassination of Mahatma Gandhi:

“It is dangerous to be too good.””

18

14. In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra

Murthy at paragraph No.7 has as held as under:

“7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11

if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled.

It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of

the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into

for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint

only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint,

it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and

meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue,

the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11

CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate

civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions

enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of

power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to.

The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to

find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action

or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to

observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred

by any law, would always depend upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. The averments in the written

statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are

wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the

defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the

allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a

whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is

barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the

application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and

the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If

clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a

cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the

19

earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier

stage.”

15. In light of the settled proposition of law, that when a

petition does not disclose any cause of action, it is liable to be

rejected under Section 86 (1) of the Act read with Order VII Rule

11 (a) and (d) CPC. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the

following:

ORDER

i.

I.A.No.2/2024-application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is

hereby allowed.

ii.

The election petition stands rejected for nondisclosure of material

facts and absence of cause of action.

Consequently, all the pending interlocutory applications stands disposed

of.

Sd/-

_____________________ JUSTICE

K.S. HEMALEKHA

By Order,

( PAWAN DIWAN)

SECRETARY

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

By order and in the name of the

Governor of Karnataka

(MADHU A.C)

Under Secretary to Government

D.P.A.R (Elections).

[

ಮುದÎಕರು ²ಾಗೂ ಪΐಾಶಕರು:- ಸಂಕಲ£ಾĩಾĸಗಳ…, ಕ£ಾಟಕ ªಾಜÍಪತÎ, ಸಾĸ ೇಂದÎ ಮುದΞಾಲಯ, ¦ೆಂಗಳˆರು

R.N.I. No. KARBIL/2001/47147 POSTAL REGN. No. RNP/KA/BGS/2202/2017-19

Licensed to post without prepayment WPP No. 297

THAMMAIAH

Digitally signed by THAMMAIAH

DN: c=IN, o=Centre for e-Governance, 2.5.4.20=be54f34f4e31eae50203ca7fab5ceb3794f20a8460a2582ef28294d43b8f8b16,

ou=department of printing stationery and Publication,CID - 7048443, postalCode=560001, st=Karnataka,

serialNumber=4d9b284dcc53d39f1425f50485de07dd86efa302a3fce3729eddea0c1b5098e0, cn=THAMMAIAH

Date: 2026.02.25 17:26:08 +05'30'