Judgment V.S. Kokje, J.-This is the respondent’s application in an election petition for striking out pleadings and rejection of the petition for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83(1)(a) & (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’ hereinafter). The application has been moved under Order Vi Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the code of civil Procedure read with Sections 83, 86 and 87 of the Act. 2. It would be necessary to state basic facts before dealing with the application. 3. Thepetition relates to the respondent’s election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Bali constituency (No. 166). October 19, 1993 was the last date for filing nominations, October 20, 1993 was the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations, October 22, 1993 was the last date for withdrawal of candidature, November 11, 1993 was the date of polling and November 27, 1993 was the date on which the counting was to commence. The original petitioner Mitha Lal Jain was the candidate set up by the Indian National congress whereas the respondent was the candidate set up by the Bhartiya Janta Party. The respondent was declared elected at the election and Mitha Lal Jain, the original petitioner challenged the election by filing the election petition on January 12, 1994. 4. The election of the respondent was challenged on the grounds enumeraled in Section 100(i)(b) of the Act. To appreciate the controversy, it could be necessary to reproduce paragraph - 7 of the petition as also its verification PARA-7 (a) : that on 27th October, 1993 in a largely attended election meeting held in the afternoon in village Beda, which is situated in the constituency in question, the respondent Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat (on a public address system) made an appeal in the name of Lord Ram for seeking votes and also referred to the demolition of the structure of Babari Masjid and construction of the Ram Tample in the context of promotion of hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the ground of religion and community. The offending statement/appeal constitutes corrupt practice of undue influence within the meaning of Section 123(2), appeal on the ground of religion and caste and use of religious symbol under Section 123(3) and relating to promotion of hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the ground of religion and community under Section 123 (3A) of the Act: (b) that in the latter part of this speech the respondent Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat made an appeal to the electors to cast their votes for the furtherance of the prospects of his election on the ground of his religion (Hindu religion) and also made an appeal to the religious symbol of Goddess Laxmi seated on a lotus (Kamal Ka Phool) who is worshipped by every Hindu and particularly on the eve of ‘Dhan Teras’ and the lotus being the symbol allotted to BJP which constitutes a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the Act. The aforesaid speech is quoted as under: ÞlHkk ds v/;{k egksn;] mifLFkfr HkkbZ;ksa vkSj cguksa] vki yksxksa us lkQk cU/kkdj esjk lEeku fd;k gS lkQk rks eSus cka/k fy;k ysfdu esjs lkeus ;s leL;k gS fd bl lkQs dks eSa ysdj tkÅa ;k bl lkQs dks ;gha NksM+ tkÅa D;dh lkQk cU/kkus ls lEeku ugha gksrk ¼vLi"V½ lkQss ds lkFk gh vkidks ftl dke ds fy;s eSa vk;k g¡w mldk lEeku djuk gksxk vc vki QSlyk dj ys vks fd lEeku djuk pkgrs gks rc rks eSa bldksa ys tkÅa vkSj lEeku ugha djuk pkgrs gks rks eSa ;gha NksM tkm ¼ rkfy;kas dh vkokt½] rks ,d ckj lc gkFk mBkdj dgksa fd ge lcdk lEeku djsaxs vc ;s esjk lEeku ugha gS] ;s rks vki dksbZ HkS:flag dk lEeku lEeku djas dh ckr ugha gS] eSa ftl dke ds fy, fudyk g¡w oks dke D;k gS\ vHkh ukjk yxk jgs Fks t; Jh jke t; Jh jke ge dks ;kn gksxk fd vaxsztksa dk tc jkt Fkk vkSj fgUnwLrku esa egkRek xka/kh us ukjk yxk;k Fkk oUnsekrjeA oUnsekrjeA dk tc ukjk yxrk Fkk rks lnhZ esa HKh vxsztksa ds ilhus vkrs Fks vkSj oks oUns ekrje dk ukjk yxkrs yxkrs fgUnwLrku ls vaxsztks dks fudky fn;kA vkt fgUnwLrku esa t; Jh jke dk ukjk yxrk gSa bl t; Jh jke ds ukjs esa bruh gh rkdr gS ftruh oUns ekrje ds ukjs esa rkdr Fkh] oUns ekrje us vaxsztks dks jokuk fd;kA rks t; Jh jke dkaxszl ds ihNs iM x;k gS bldks jokuk djds gh NksM+xk ¼rkfy;kssa dh vkokt½ blfy;s os ,d ckj ejss lkFk fQj cksyks t; Jh jke] t; Jh jke ¼turk cksyrh gS t; Jh jke turk cksyrh gS t; Jh jke½ vkSj ftlds t; Jh jke dk vki ukjk yxk jgs gks pquko bl ckr dk gS Hkxoku jke ds tUe LFkku ij Hkxoku jke dk efUnj cus D;k fgUnwLrku ds iz/kkuea=h dgrs gS fd eSa ml LFkku ij efLtn cukmaxkA vkidks ;g ekye ugha gS fd vaxsztksa ds tekus esa fd eafnj vkSj efLtn dk >xMk pyk vaxsztksa us ns[kk fd blls cf <+;k dksbZ cht ugha gS fd fgUnw vkSj eqlyeku dks blh rjg yM+k fn;k tkos yxkrkj fgUnw vkSj eqlyeku dks yM+k;k yM+krs gkyr ;g gks xbZ fd fgUnwLrku ds nks VwdM+s gks x;s ikfdLrku cu x;k vkSj fgUnwLrku mlds ckn esa gekjh dkaxszl ikVhZ us HKh fd fgUnwLrku esa jkt djrk gS rks fgUnw vkSj eqlyeku dks yMk dj fn;kA <+k+k[kM+ x;k fd fgUnwLrku ds yksxksa us ogka dkj lsok kq: dh vkSj dkj lsok esa vkius ns[kkgksxk fd rks yxkrkj ;s <+kps dk >xM dk k bruk c<+djh djus ugha x;s] dksbZ /ku ikus ugha x;s] yksyksx ogka O;kikj djus ugha x;s ukSx Hkxoku Jhjke dk eafnj ogka cus ;s ladYi ds lkFk v;ks/;k esa x;s mu ij xksfy;ka pyh vkSj v;ks/;k dh xfy;kas esa [kwu cgus yxkA mlds ckn bl ljdk dh vka[k [ kqj vka[k [kqyh vkSyrs gh mUgksaus dgk fd ÞHkkbZ ckcjh efLtn ,Dku desVh vkSj foo fgUnw ifj"kn cSBdj bldk QSlyk djsa oks vkil esa cSB ugha jgs fQj ml le; tc iz/kkuea=h us eq>s vkSj egkjk"Vª ds eq[;ea=h kjn iaokj dks dgk fd bldks vkil cSBdj ckrphr djksa geus ckr phr djh avkSj ckr phr esa eqlyeku bl ckr ds gka Hkj x;s fd vxj ;g eku yh ;g lkfcr gks tk;s fd ;s tks <kpk d LFky dks rkscuk gqvk gS fdlh /kkfeZM+dj cuk;k gS rks efLtn dk nkok NksM+ nsaxsA dkaxszl ds yksx ukjkt gq;s ysfdu ckr Vy xbZ vkSj Vyus ds ckn esaq geus iz/kkuea=h th ls dgkfd bldk QSlyk lqizhe dksVZ ds fdlh tt dks ns nks iz/kkuea=h th us mÙkj ugha fn;k vkSj tc <kapk VwVk rks blds ckn esa bl ekeys dks iz/kkuea=h th us lqizhe dksVZ dks Hkstk vkSj Hkstus ds ckn esa dgrs gS fd vHkh Qslyk ugha gqvk dgrs gS fd eSa rks <kaps dh txg efLtn cukÅaxk ogka Hkxoku jke dh eqfrZ vkt Hkh gS yksx mudk nkZu djrs gS iwtk ikB djrs gS vx >xM Hkxoku jke dh ewfrZ tgka gS ogha efLtn curh gS rks urhtk D;k fudysxk ml ewfrZ dks mBkdj ys tkuk iMsxk vki yksx i{k esa gSa D;k ewfrZ dks mBkdj ys tkus ds dksbZ i{k esa ugh gS vc ge ;s dgrs gS gekjk efLtn ls >xMk ugha gS ;s dsoy ,d <ka pk gS ftlesa vkt rd fdlh eqlyeku us uekt ugh i<+h vkt rd fdlh dqjku dh fdrkc ugha j[kh xbZ] vkt rd ;gka ds vtku ugha nh xbZ ysfdu ewlyekuksa esa ,d vyxko [TRUNCATED] The original cassette is submitted herewith along with three extra copies --one meant for this Hontile Court and two extra copies to be served on the respondent along with the copy of the election petition. The petitioner prays that the original cassette may be kept in a sealed cover; .(d) that the BJP published a poster containing the symbol of Goddess Laxmi seated on a lotus (Kamal Ka Phool) having five upper and three lower petals with a stem, which is the symbol allotted to the BJP, in Rajasthan Patrika dated 9th November, 1993, at page 10 of Jodhpur Edition which has a wide circulation in the constituency under the signatures of the respondent Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, as former Chief Minister. A copy of this cutting of the aforesaid newspaper is submitted herewith and marked Annexure 1. .(e) that likewise the BJP published a similar poster under the signatures of the respondent as well as Shri Ram Das Agrawal, Pradesh President of the BJP in daily Nay Jyoti dated 10th November, 1993, at page 9 of the Ajmer Edition, which has a wide circulation in the said constituency. A cutting of the aforesaid newspaper is submitted herewith and marked Annexure 2, By publishing the aforesaid posters Annexure 1 and 2 the respondent made an appeal to the electors on the ground of religious symbol and made use of it for the furtherance of the prospects of his election. Therefore, he has committed corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 (3) of the Act. VERIFICATION 1, Mitha Lal above-named petitioner this 11th day of January, 1994, verify that the contents of paragraphs Nos. 1 to 5 are fruc to my knowledge and the documents referred to therein and the contents of paras 6, 7, 8. 9, 10 and 11 are true on the basis of the information received and believed to be true. JODHPUR 11-1-1994 Sd/- Mitha Lal Petitioner 5. The aimexures referred to in para-graphs-7(d) and (e) above were publications, in the Newspapers referred to in the paragraphs of Diwali Greetings on behalf of Bhartiya Janta Party by the respondent as Ex. Chief Minister and one Ram Dass Agrawal as the State President of the party. JODHPUR 11-1-1994 Sd/- Mitha Lal Petitioner 5. The aimexures referred to in para-graphs-7(d) and (e) above were publications, in the Newspapers referred to in the paragraphs of Diwali Greetings on behalf of Bhartiya Janta Party by the respondent as Ex. Chief Minister and one Ram Dass Agrawal as the State President of the party. Facsimile signatures of the respondent and Ram Dass Agrawal were also printed in the Newspapers, The publication carried the heading “Bhartiya Janta Party” and caned the bottom line to the effect that it was published by the Bhartiya Janta Party, Rajasthan. Borders on both the sides carried pictures of earthern lamps. The body contained a picture of Goddess Laxmi seated on a lotus having five upper petals and three lower petals with the stem. On the top of the picture of the Goddess “Shri Ganeshaya Namha” was printed and on the right and left sides respectively of the Goddess “Shubh” and “Labh” were printed. On both sides “Swastik” 6. The petition was accompanied by an affidavit of the original petitioner Mitha Lal Jain. Since objections have been raised to the validity of the affidavit, it would be necessary to reproduce the affidavit AFFIDAVIT I, Mitha Lal aged 53 years son of Shri Ratan Chand Jain, petitioner in the accompanying election petition calling in question the election of Shri Bhairon Sinngh Shekhawat (sole respondent in the said petition make oath and state .(a) that the statements made in para 7 and its sub-paras (a) to (e) of the accompanying election petition about the commission of the corrupt practices of undue influence as defined under Section 123 (2), appeal of religious symbol and use thereof as defined under Section 123 (3) and promotion of hatred. between different classes of citizens of India on the ground of religion and community as defined in Section 123 (3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are true to my knowledge and the documents referred to therein. .(b) that the averments relating to the ground for setting aside the election of the respondent on the basis of corrupt practices set out in para 8 of the election petition and so also the prayer clause in para 11 are true to my knowledge. Deponent. .(b) that the averments relating to the ground for setting aside the election of the respondent on the basis of corrupt practices set out in para 8 of the election petition and so also the prayer clause in para 11 are true to my knowledge. Deponent. VERIFICATION I, Mitha Lal aged 53 years son of Shri Ratan Chand Jain, above-named deponent solemnly affirm that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. Nothing has been concealed and no part of it is false. So help me God. Jodhpur Deponent 7. After the service of notice on March 4, 1994 an application under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections S3, 86 and 87 of the Act referred to in the opening paragraph of this order was moved. It was contended in this application that from the reading of the entire election petition including annexures as also the affidavits accompanying the election petition, it is apparent that the petition does not disclose any cause of action as neither it contains a concise statement of the material facts nor does it set forth full particulars of the corrupt practices alleged against the respondent. It was, therefore, contended that mandatory provisions of Section 83 (1)(a) and (b) of the Act were not complied with. It was also contended that the affidavit accompanying the election petition also did not contain the full particulars in support of the allegations of the corrupt practices and was therefore defective. It was contended that contents of paragraph - 7(a), (b), (c). (d) and (e) were absolutely vague and frivolous and were of roving and fishing nature tending to prejudice and embarrass the fair trial of the petition and were even otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. It was further contended that all the averments made in paragraph - 7(a) of the petition were bald and vague allegations and did not amount to concise statement of material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices within the meaning of Sections 123(2), 123 (3) and 123(3A) of the Act. It was further contended that all the averments made in paragraph - 7(a) of the petition were bald and vague allegations and did not amount to concise statement of material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices within the meaning of Sections 123(2), 123 (3) and 123(3A) of the Act. It was further contended that the composition of the audience which was alleged to have attended the meeting dated October 27, 1993 not given in the petition and whether they were voters in the Constituency and their names and residence as also what was the strength of the audience and to which religion, caste and/or community or class of citizens they belonged, was not specified. It was contended that no material facts or full particulars were given as to how the respondent whether directly or indirectly interfered or attempted to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right amounting to the corrupt practices of undue influence within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. Neither the manner in which the undue influence was exercised was mentioned nor the persons on whom the undue influence was exercised were named. Even the portions of the speech which amounted to corrupt practices of undue influence were not specified. As regards the alleged corrupt practices under Section 123(3) of the Act, it was contended that the nature and the kind of the appeal or the words thereof which amounted to appeal on the ground of religion and caste and use of religious symbol were not specified. It was, therefore, contended that the entire allegations were vague and did not amount to specific allegations of material facts with full particulars of corrupt practices under Section 123(3) of the Act. As regards allegation of corrupt practices under Section 123(3A) of the Act, it was contended that the nature of the offending statement and actual words which constituted such corrupt practices were not specified and, therefore, the allegations were vague. It was, therefore, contended that the allegations in paragraph - 7(a) of the petition were frivolous, vexatious and vague and were more in the nature of roving and fishing enquiry which tended to prejudice the fair trial and also amounted to abuse of the-process of the Court and, therefore, deserved to be struck off under Orders VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also contended that the allegations did not disclose any cause of action and consequently did not raise any triable issue which the respondent might be required to answer and, therefore, the election petition deserved to be rejected under Order VII, Rule II of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was contended that the affidavit was defective in as much as in the verification of the petition paragraph - 7 was verified to be true on the basis of the information received and believed to be true while in the affidavit, the petitioner stated that all the contents of paragraph - 7(a) to (e) and paragraph - 8 were true to his knowledge. It was contended that because of this contradiction, the election petition deserved to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 83 of the Act as regards filing of the affidavit. 8. The original petitioner filed reply to this application and contended that the objections raised in the application were baseless, unfounded and untenable and the application was filed to prolong the trial of the election petition. It was contended that the election petition contained concise statement of material facts and requisite particulars. It was further contended that the election petition was based on the speeches delivered by the respondent himself and on the posters published by the respondent. According to the petitioner the petition contained allegations in detail setting out specific corrupt practices. It was further contended that what was required to be stated was material facts with full particulars and not the evidence on which the allegations were based. Pleading was not expected to contain evidence to prove the material tacts. As the entire speech was no vagueness in the allegations and it could be easily made out from the speech itself that the respondent had committed corrupt practices. As regards the affidavit, it was submitted in the reply that it has to be read in the context of and along with the petition and so read, it could not be said to be a defective affidavit. The reply was supported by an affidavit of the original petitioner. The reply has been filed on April 23, 1994. 9. On May 20, 1994, a rejoinder was tiled on behalf of the respondent supported by his affidavit. The reply was supported by an affidavit of the original petitioner. The reply has been filed on April 23, 1994. 9. On May 20, 1994, a rejoinder was tiled on behalf of the respondent supported by his affidavit. In this rejoinder, it was contended that the affidavit in support of the petition was integral part of the election petition and could not be described as a supporting affidavit. It was also contended that only because the alleged speech was reproduced in the petition, it could not be said that the specific allegations of corrupt practices were made and it could not have been left to the respondent to find out the objectionable portion from the speech and to infer that those portions in the speech were the basis of the corrupt practices alleged. The contentions raised in the application were reaffirmed. 10. On April23, 1994 itself , an application for amending the affidavit filed with the petition was moved by the original petitioner. A reply was also filed by the respondent to this application.