R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS application arises out of Election Petition No. 6 of 1995 which is pending disposal. Respondent No. 1 in the said election petition is the returned candidate who has filed this application praying to try issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as preliminary issues and dismiss the election petition on adjudication of those three issues. ( 2 ) GENERAL Election to Orissa State Legislative Assembly was held in March, 1995. The election petitioner and respondents 1 to 9 (parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their description in the election petition) contested the said election from 27, Barchana Assembly Constituency. The election petitioner polled 60,470 valid votes in his favour whereas respondent No. 1 polled 61,076 valid votes in his favour. The latter having polled the highest number of valid votes (61,076) in his favour, he was declared elected. Being felt aggrieved at the success of respondent No. 1 in the election, the election petition has been filed praying: (i) for inspection, scrutiny and recounting of all votes; (ii) to declare the election of respondent No. 1 void; and (iii) to declare the election petitioner to have been duly elected. One of the grounds of challenge is that respondent No. 1 is guilty of commission of corrupt practices. Notice being issued in the election petition, respondent No. 1 has filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the election petition. ( 3 ) ON consideration of the respective pleadings of the parties, this Court has framed nine issues out of which the following three issues are relevant for the purpose of this application. Those three issues are : (1) Is the election petition as laid maintainable? (2) Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 (1) for noncompliance with provisions contained in Sections 81, or 82 or 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? (3) Is the election petition liable to be rejected in absence of any material facts with regard to individual items of allegations? (2) Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 (1) for noncompliance with provisions contained in Sections 81, or 82 or 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? (3) Is the election petition liable to be rejected in absence of any material facts with regard to individual items of allegations? ( 4 ) AFTER certain orders were passed on the prayer made by the parties with regard to production of documents, respondent No. 1 has filed the present application praying that the aforesaid three issues can be tried as preliminary issues as they are entirely and exclusively issues of law and the entire election petition can be disposed of preliminary on adjudication of the issues in question. The election petitioner has filed his objection to the application contending, inter alia, that the three issues are neither pure issues of law nor are they relatable to the jurisdiction of the Court. ( 5 ) IN order to properly appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Code of Civil Procedure (in brief 'c. P. C. ' ). ( 6 ) THE Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a complete and self-contained Code. Part VI of the Act deals with disputes regarding election. Chapters II and III of Part VI deal with presentation of election petitions and trial thereof. Section 81 prescribes as to who may present an election petition. Section 83 which deals with "contents of petition" reads as follows: "88. Part VI of the Act deals with disputes regarding election. Chapters II and III of Part VI deal with presentation of election petitions and trial thereof. Section 81 prescribes as to who may present an election petition. Section 83 which deals with "contents of petition" reads as follows: "88. Contents of petition-- (1) An election petition (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings: (Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof ). (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. "section 86 (1) mandates that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81, or Section 82 or Section 117. Section 87 (1) prescribes that subject to the provisions of the Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High, Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under C. P. C. to the trial of suits. ( 7 ) SHRI Bidyadhar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, by copiously referring to the election petition submitted that material facts relating to corrupt practice having not been stated, the election petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold. Shri Bidudhendra Mishra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the election petitioner, on the other hand, contended that there is marked difference between "material facts" and "material particulars" and the election petition contains all the material facts relating to corrupt practice committed by respondent No. 1. Shri Bidudhendra Mishra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the election petitioner, on the other hand, contended that there is marked difference between "material facts" and "material particulars" and the election petition contains all the material facts relating to corrupt practice committed by respondent No. 1. His further argument was that under Section 86 (1) of the Act, the election petition is only liable to be dismissed summarily for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 81, or Section 82 or Section 117 and since Section 83 (1) which requires the election petitioner to furnish full material facts of corrupt practice does not find place in Section 86 (1) of the Act, the election petition cannot be rejected at the threshold. According to the learned counsel the Court without recording evidence would not be justified in rejecting the election petition at this stage. ( 8 ) IN the present application, respondent No. 1 does not allege that the election petition is liable to be rejected under Section 86 (1) for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 81, or Section 82 or Section 117 of the Act. His clear and specific case is that as required under Section 83 (1) of the Act, the election petition does not contain statements of material facts on which the election petitioner relies and full particulars of alleged corrupt practice having not been set forth, the election petition is liable to be rejected summarily under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action. ( 9 ) THE question as to whether an election petition can be rejected at the threshold for non-compliance with Section 83 (1) of the Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253. In that case the Supreme Court held that since the C. P. C. is applied to the trial of election petition by virtue of Section 87 (1) of the Act, the Court trying an election petition can act in exercise of the powers of the C. P. C. including Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 7, Rule 11 (a ). The fact that Section 83 does not find mention in Section 86 (1) does not mean that powers under C. P. C. cannot be exercised. The fact that Section 83 does not find mention in Section 86 (1) does not mean that powers under C. P. C. cannot be exercised. An election petition can be summarily dismissed in exercise of the powers under the C. P. C. if it does not furnish cause of action. The Supreme Court while emphasising the need for dismissal of election petition on preliminary issue further observed that the whole purposes of conferment of such powers (power to dismiss election petition summarily on the grounds mentioned above) on the Court is to ensure that litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court. The Sword of Damocles should not be kept hanging over the head of the returned candidate unnecessarily without point or purpose. The Supreme Court rejected as misconceived and untenable the contention that even if the election petition is liable to be dismissed, it should be so dismissed at the end only after recording evidence. The Court held that powers in this behalf are meant to be exercised for the purpose for which the same have been conferred on the competent Court so that the litigation comes to an end at the earliest and the concerned litigants are relieved of the psychological burden of the litigation. This view taken in Azhar Hussain (AIR 1986 SC 1263) (supra) was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath, AIR 1987 SC 1926 . I may point out here that in F. A. Sapa v. Singora, AIR 1991 SC 1557 , Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) speaking for a three member Bench held in paragraph 20 of the judgment that by non-mentioning of Section 83 in Section 86 (1) of the Act, the Legislature does not seem to view the noncompliance of requirement of Section 83 (1) with the same gravity as in Section 81, or Section 82 or Section 117. In that case the Court was considering the point whether on account of defect in the verification of the election petition, it could be thrown out solely on that ground. It was not a case where the election petition was sought to be dismissed summarily for non-compliance with the requirement of Section 83 (1) of the Act. In that case the Court was considering the point whether on account of defect in the verification of the election petition, it could be thrown out solely on that ground. It was not a case where the election petition was sought to be dismissed summarily for non-compliance with the requirement of Section 83 (1) of the Act. ( 10 ) KEEPING the aforesaid legal position in view I may now consider the submissions made on behalf of the parties Shri Bidyadhar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 by specifically referring to paragraphs 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 24 and 25 of the election petition and Annexures-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 7/1 appended to the election petition submitted that they lack in "material facts" with regard to individual allegation of corrupt practice and other irregularities and as such, the election petition should be thrown overboard on the ground of absence of cause of action. Let me, therefore, briefly indicate the averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs of the election petition and the "material facts" which according to the learned counsel, are wanting. (i) In paragraphs 10 to 12 of the election petition, the election petitioner alleges that in violation of the instructions issued by the Election Commission, hundreds of new works sanctioned or not sanctioned like Nillion Weel Project, Indira Abash Yojana, United Fund, J. R. Y. and Operation Black Board were undertaken by the officials at the behest of the party in power and the respondent No. 1 who was a sitting member of the Assembly from Barchana Constituency at the time of elections. The names of different beneficiaries of those works with advances paid to them are enclosed as Annexures 1 to 5 to the election petition. Comments on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The material fact requires to be pleaded is that the author of the corrupt practice by the time of the alleged commission of the corrupt practice must have been a candidate. The election was notified on 10-1-1995 and the respondent No. 1 filed his nomination on 16 1-1995. Comments on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The material fact requires to be pleaded is that the author of the corrupt practice by the time of the alleged commission of the corrupt practice must have been a candidate. The election was notified on 10-1-1995 and the respondent No. 1 filed his nomination on 16 1-1995. There is no pleading that by the time of the alleged commission of corrupt practice the respondent No. 1 had either declared himself to be a candidate by the above date nor there was any assertion that he was declared by the Janata Dal to be its nominee for the constituency in the election. There is also no pleading to the effect that the officers did the work at the behest of respondent No. 1 after he was declared as a nominee of the Janata Dal or filed his nomination so as to further his election prospect. (ii) In paragraph 13 of the election petition, the allegation is to the effect that on 3-2-1995, anew project of flood switch gate at Udayanagar Pat was started under the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Mahanadi North Division, Jagatpur, Cuttack at the behest of respondent No. 1. A complaint dated 8-2-1995 made by some local people to the Chief Election Commission is at Annexure-6 to the election petition. Comments on behalf of the respondent No. 1. It has not been pleaded in the election petition that whether the aforesaid work was undertaken with a view to further the election prospect of the respondent No. 1 after he became a candidate. (iii) In paragraph 14 of the election petition, it has been alleged that the respondent No. 1 obtained/procured the assistance of Pravash Chandra Mohanty, Block Development Officer, Barchana Block for initiation and continuance of new works in different parts of the Block for furtherance of the prospects of his election. Niranjan Sahoo, the Election Agent of the election petitioner sent a telegram dated 12-12-1994 as per Annexure7 bringing the above conduct of the Block Development Officer to the notice of the Chief Election Officer, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. Comments on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The material fact requires to be pleaded is that the author of the corrupt practice by the time of the alleged commission of the corrupt practice Trust have been a candidate. Comments on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The material fact requires to be pleaded is that the author of the corrupt practice by the time of the alleged commission of the corrupt practice Trust have been a candidate. The election was notified on 10-1-1995, and the respondent No. 1 filed his nomination on 16-1-1995. There is no pleading that by the time of the alleged commission of corrupt practice the respondent No. 1 had either declared himself to be a candidate by the above date nor there was any assertion that he was declared by the Janata Dal to be its nominee for the constituency in the election. There is also no pleading to the effect that the officer concerned did the work at the behest of respondent No. 1 after he was declared as a nominee of the Janata Dal or filed his nomination so as to further his election prospect. (iv) In paragraph 18 of the election petition, the election petitioner has alleged that taking advantage of his position as a Janata Dal member, respondent No. 1 procured assistance of the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Lift Irrigation, Dharmasala to undertake a new Lift Irrigation Project at Berhampur. It has been further alleged that the respondent No. 1 procured assistance of the Junior Engineer (Electrical) Barachana in making arrangements to supply power to the said Lift Irrigation point for furtherance of the prospects of his election. Comments on behalf of the respondent No. 1there is no pleading as to when the Lift Irrigation Project was commissioned or as to when electricity was supplied to the said project. There is also no date as to when he procured the asistance of the Sub-Divisional Officer. There is also no pleading as to whether by the time of commission of the Lift Irrigation Project or supply of electricity, the respondent No. 1 had filed his nomination or not. (v) In paragraph 19 of the election petition, it has been alleged that the respondent No. 1 obtained the assistance of the then Block Development Officer, Dharmasala for issuance of work order for construction of Kalinga Pathagar Building at Pipalidiha for the furtherance of the prospects of his election;. Comments on behalf of the respondent No. 1there is no pleading as to the date of issue of the work order. Comments on behalf of the respondent No. 1there is no pleading as to the date of issue of the work order. There is also no mention that by the time the work order was issued, the respondent No. 1 was a Candidate or not. (vi) In paragraph 21 of the election petition, it has been alleged that respondent No. 1 committed corrupt practice under Section 123 (1) of the Act by inducing one Dillip Kumar Nayak to vote for him as the said Nayak was appointed as Lecturer in Bhairabananda Mahavidyalaya on the recommendation of respondent No. 1 who was a member of the Governing Body of the college at the relevant time. It his further been alleged that on the recommendation of respondent No. 1, sixty four persons were appointed in the Konark Jute Mill. Comments on behalf of the respondent No. 1 There is no mention in the election petition as to when the respondent No. 1 recommended Dillip Kumar Nayak to be appointed as a Lecturer. There is also no pleading as to whether by the time of alleged recommendation, the respondent No. 1 was already a candidate so as to attract Section 123 (1) of the Act. Regarding appointment of sixty four persons in the Konark Jute Mill, there is no pleading as to when respondent No. 1 recommended or whether by the time of recommendation, he was a candidate or not. (vii) In paragraph 24 of the election petition, it has been alleged that on the date of polling, an elector named Prabhat Kumar Nayak while standing in the queue to vote in polling booth No. 47 was stabbed by another elector, called Munna Khan. As a result of such incident some electors standing in the queue left the place out of fear. Comments on behalf of the respondent No. 1there is no pleading that the injured Prabhat Kumar Nayak was a supporter of the election petitioner nor there is any averment that at the behest and at the instance of respondent No. 1 and to his knowledge and with his consent, the said Nayak was stabbed in order to create a fear psychosis in the mind of other voters. (viii) in paragraph 25 of the election petition, it has been alleged that there was double voting by fourteen electors. (viii) in paragraph 25 of the election petition, it has been alleged that there was double voting by fourteen electors. Comments on behalf of the respondent No. 1there is no allegation that the respondent No. 1 was any way involved in the alleged electioneering mal practice. ( 11 ) SHRI Bibubendu Mishra, learned counsel for the election petitioner, on the other hand, brought to my notice the averments made in paragraph 17 of the election petition wherein it has been asserted that some of the beneficiaries of different works are active workers of the Janata Dal. The names of some beneficiaries together with their position in the party have been elaborately mentioned by stating "this proves the nexus between the respondent No. 1, his election agent, the Chairman of the Panchayat Samity and the Block Development Officer (A Gazetted Officer) to influence the voters for the furtherance of the prospects of election of respondent No. 1. " According to him, the averments made in paragraphs referred to by the respondent No. 1 clearly disclose the cause of action and the election petition, accordingly cannot be thrown out. ( 12 ) THE distinction between "material facts" and "material particulars" is now well defined. All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence are "material facts". In the context of a charge of corrupt practice, "material facts" would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged which the election petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. "particulars" on the other hand are the details of the case set up by the party and it would mean all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in the petition. On careful perusal of the averments made in the paragraphs referred to by the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that material facts have been pleaded in the election petition and the absence of dates, precise time and other details pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 pertain to "material particulars" and not "material facts" and this cannot be a valid ground to hold that there is no cause of action. ( 13 ) SHRI Bidyadhar Mishra by bringing to my notice Order VI, Rule 15, C. P. C. contended that the verification made to the election petition is defective. As it is a remedial defect, the learned counsel fairly did not contend that the election petition should be dismissed at the threshold on account of non verification of the election petition in terms of Order VI, Rule 15, C. P. C. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly rejected. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 1,000/ -. Application dismissed.