JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This order disposes of issues No. 6 and 7 framed by this Court on 28.3.2001 in Election Petition No. 4 of 2000 titled Harsh Kumar v. Bhagwan Sahai Rawat and others. These issues are to the following effect :- "6. Whether the petitioner has not filed any legal and valid affidavit in support of the election petition, if so, its effect ? OPR 7. Whether the election petition lacks material facts and particulars and does not disclose any cause of action ? OPR" 2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties involving under these issues, the following facts can be noticed :- General Elections to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha 2000 were notified on 10.1.2000. The last date for filing the nomination papers was 3.2.2000. The date of polling was 22.2.2000 and counting of votes took place on 25.2.2000. In this case challenge has been given to the candidature of returned candidate Bhagwan Sahai Rawat by petitioner Harsh Kumar from 56-Hathin Assembly constituency. Respondent No. 1 was declared successful by a margin of 1400 and odd votes. It is alleged by the petitioner that returned candidate started claiming in the constituency in public/corner meetings that he would provide employment to the voters who are unemployed in the constituency in case they give their votes in lieu thereof. He also declared in the constituency that he is in touch with the Government and persuading the Government to issue the necessary advertisements for various categories of posts so that all unemployed voters having different qualifications would be included in Government/Boards/Corporations. He asked unemployed youth to give their bio- data to him so that he could help them in getting the Government jobs. He promised the unemployed youth the services in lieu of their votes and support in the election in question. All these promises were made by respondent No. 1 in the constituency after 7.1.2000. Consequently good response was given by those who were in dire necessity of jobs. According to the petitioner, it is a violation of Mode Code of Conduct. It is so stated in para No. 7 of the election petition. It is also alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 declared in the constituency that he was in touch with the high-ups in the Government. According to the petitioner, it is a violation of Mode Code of Conduct. It is so stated in para No. 7 of the election petition. It is also alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 declared in the constituency that he was in touch with the high-ups in the Government. He was successful in his design as a result of which 297 posts of various categories were advertised by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, 1026 posts were advertised by Haryana Staff Selection Commission and 4600 posts of Constables were advertised. All this has been done at his behest by the Government. He further claimed that he was very close to the Chief Minister and the advertisements, which were made at the behest of respondent No. 1, is in violation of Model Code of Conduct because it had allured the unemployed youth of the constituency. Now it is the policy of the Government to ban the recruitments in the State of Haryana. Resultantly, the alleged promises made by respondent No. 1 were only made with a calculated design to allure the unemployed voters for the success of India National Lok Dal party in the State of Haryana. This is the allegation of the petitioner in the election petition as contained in para No. 8. In para No. 9 with sub- paras (i) to (v) it is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has committed the corrupt practice of bribery as defined in Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter called the Act). Elaborating the particulars of corrupt practice it is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 distributed the pamphlets of advertisements through out the constituency during his election campaign/corner meetings to unemployed voters. Further elaborating the petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1 accompanied by his supporters and active workers namely Ram Parshad, Sarpanch of village Bahin, Randhir Singh, Chairman of Hindi Sahitaya Academy, Haryana, Sati Ram, resident of village Bhangur, Net Ram of village Bahin, Sahi Ram, Ex-Sarpanch, Bahin, Jaleb Khan, Sarpanch of village Kot and Tota Ram Jat of Mitrol visited village Mitrol, Tehsil Hodel, Distt. Faridabad on 14.2.2000 at 12.00 noon and they collected voters of the village in the Chopal. Faridabad on 14.2.2000 at 12.00 noon and they collected voters of the village in the Chopal. About 200 voters of the village collected there and respondent No. 1 distributed pamphlets containing the details regarding advertisements of recruitment made by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Irrigation Department, Health Department, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana and Haryana Police. So much so, respondent No. 1 gave copies of advertisements to Naresh, Yogender Kumar, Mohinder Singh and Jagdish, residents of village Banchari, Tehsil Hodel. Further, the respondent No. 1 asked the educated voters to give their bio-data so that they could be helped in their selection. He made promises to the effect that many other posts were also being advertised shortly by the Government and he would ensure the employment to the educated voters. Some voters including the persons named above were present and they even gave the bio-data to respondent No. 1. Similarly in para No. 9(iii) allegations have been made that on 14.2.2000 at 4.00 p.m. respondent No. 1 with the assistance of his supporters visited village Siha, Tehsil Hodel and distributed the advertisement pamphlets amongst the unemployed educated youth and assured them that in case that cast their votes in his favour, they would be helped in getting the jobs. So much so, their bio-datas were also obtained by the respondent No. 1. Still further, the petitioner alleged in para No. 9(iv) that on 15.2.2000 at 8.00 a.m. respondent No. 1 with his supporters mentioned in the said sub-para visited village Bahin, Tehsil Hodel, District Faridabad and about 200 voters of the village were collected. Same exercise was done amongst the unemployed youth which was done in other village. Also it is alleged in para No. 9(v) that returned candidate visited village Manpur, Tehsil Hodel, Distt. Faridabad on 15.2.2000 at 4.00 p.m. About 200 persons collected at the village Chopal. Pamphlets were distributed and promises were made for the procurement of the jobs to the unemployed youth and their bio-datas were obtained. This act on the part of respondent No. 1 constitutes a bribery as defined in Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Act. It is further alleged by the petitioner that Daler Singh, respondent No. 3, submitted his nomination papers as nominee of Bahujan Samaj Party having the symbol of elephant. This act on the part of respondent No. 1 constitutes a bribery as defined in Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Act. It is further alleged by the petitioner that Daler Singh, respondent No. 3, submitted his nomination papers as nominee of Bahujan Samaj Party having the symbol of elephant. According to the voter list, his age is shown as 24 years and according to the matriculation certificate issued by the Board of School Education Haryana his date of birth is 10.7.1975. Thus Daler Singh was less than 25 years of age when he submitted the nomination papers on 3.2.2000 before the Returning Officer. In the nomination papers Daler Singh gave his age as 25 years one month. He did not submit any other document in support of his age. Thus he was not eligible to contest the election. Further, Daler Singh did not file nomination papers before the Returning Officer within the specified hours and those were not properly scrutinized by the Returning Officer. Still he was allowed to contest the election. He secured 3908 votes. Since the difference between the lost candidate and the returned candidate was 1354, hence the election of the petitioner has been materially prejudiced and the result in favour of respondent No. 1 is supposed to be declared as void as per the provisions of Section 100(1)(a)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Act. Also it was alleged that respondent No. 3 did not take oath in proper manner before the Returning Officer. Respondent No. 3 belongs to village Aurangabad, which is a large village. Villages Tumasra, Gudhrana, Siha and Dakora adjoin this village and the petitioner had a considerable influence in these villages. Respondents No. 1 and 3 have secured 2034 and 2851 votes respectively. Had the Returning Officer not accepted the nomination papers of Daler Singh, the petitioner would have secured the maximum votes which were secured by Daler Singh. The improper acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No. 3 has material affected the election of the petitioner as the difference was hardly of 1354 votes. The petitioner in para No. 13 of the election further alleges that Yudhvir Singh Zaildar, respondent No. 4, filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Republican Party of India. He was allotted the symbol of rising sun. He did not submit his nomination papers properly as required under the law. The petitioner in para No. 13 of the election further alleges that Yudhvir Singh Zaildar, respondent No. 4, filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Republican Party of India. He was allotted the symbol of rising sun. He did not submit his nomination papers properly as required under the law. His nomination papers have been illegally accepted and with the acceptance of his illegal papers the election of the petitioner has been materially prejudiced. Further, respondent No. 4, did not take the statutory oath according to law and rules. Had respondent No. 4 not been allowed to contest the election, the votes which were polled for the benefit of respondent No. 4 would have gone to the petitioner and in this manner the election of respondent No. 1 is bad. 4. It is the grouse of the petitioner that respondent No. 7 Jogender, who stood as an independent candidate, did not take the oath properly as required under the law. He got 4773 votes. Had his nomination papers been rejected, the votes polled in favour of respondent No. 7 would have gone to the petitioner. It is also alleged in para No. 18 of the election petition that Haryana Government headed by Shri Om Parkash Chautala as Chief Minister and President of Indian National Lok Dal decided to increase the old age pension in the State of Haryana from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- per month. The old age pension was being distributed to the old age persons in the State of Haryana or before 7th of every month for the last more than 3 years. The decision for increasing the old age pension was announced on the occasion of the birthday of Ch. Devi Lal at Hissar and it was announced that this decision would be applicable w.e.f. 1.11.1999 because the Haryana State came into existence on 1.11.1966. The old age pension for the months of November and December, 1999 was distributed at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month in spite of the fact that the decision was taken to increase the same from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.1999. The eligible old age persons/voters were not paid the pension for the month of January, 2000 and it was distributed after 7.2.2000 and before 21.2.2000 at the rate of Rs. 200/- along with the arrears for the month of November and December, 1999. 100/- to Rs. 200/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.1999. The eligible old age persons/voters were not paid the pension for the month of January, 2000 and it was distributed after 7.2.2000 and before 21.2.2000 at the rate of Rs. 200/- along with the arrears for the month of November and December, 1999. The Tehsildar along with his 2-3 officials, Kanungo and Patwari of the village visited the villages of 56- Hathin Assembly Constituency w.e.f. 7.2.2000 to 21.2.2000 for distributing the pension and in most of the villages respondent No. 1 along with his active supporters was also seen claiming that the pension is being paid at his instance and in lieu thereof he was asking the voters/pensioners to vote for him. In this way he was succeeded in getting sufficient number of votes. The decision of the Government for the enhancement of old age pension at the nick of the election time tantamounts to bribery. With these broad allegations the petitioner prayed that the election of respondent No. 1 be declared void. 3. It may be mentioned here that the election petition (principal election petition) was filed in the Registry on 5.4.2000 along with the verification as required under the law. 4. Notice of the election petition was given to the respondents. Written statement was filed by respondent No. 1 on 8.9.2000. Separate written statement was also filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. Similarly respondents No. 5 and 7 also filed written statements separately. All the respondents denied the allegations of the election petition. A preliminary objection was taken by respondent No. 1 in the written statement that since the election petitioner has levelled allegations of commission of corrupt practice against the answering respondent, therefore, the affidavit filed in support of the election petition was not valid. Respondent No. 1 also took the objection that the election petition lacks in material facts and it does not disclose any cause of action. It lacks in full particulars and is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, each and every averment made by the election petitioner was denied. Other respondents also denied the allegations and prayed for the dismissal of the election petition. 5. It lacks in full particulars and is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, each and every averment made by the election petitioner was denied. Other respondents also denied the allegations and prayed for the dismissal of the election petition. 5. Petitioner Harsh Kumar filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. that he may be allowed to amend the verification part of his election petition because a specific objection has been taken by the contesting respondent No. 1 with regard to the affidavit filed by the election petitioner in support of election petition. The said application was contested and vide my detailed order dated 30.1.2001 the same was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs and the prosecution was directed to place on record the amended election petition with proposed amended verification. Resultantly, the amended election petition was filed in the Registry on 12.3.2001 and along with that a copy of affidavit attested on 5.4.2000 was filed. At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned here that the unamended election petition was filed on 5.4.2000 along with affidavit. To the amended election petition fresh written statement was not filed, rather it was stated by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents at the Bar that they do not want to file any written statement to the amended election petition and the written statements already on the record shall be read as amended written statements to the amended election petition. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, this court framed the following issues on 28.3.2001 by ordering that issues No. 6 and 7 shall be treated as preliminary :- "1. Whether respondent No. 1 Bhagwan Sahai Rawat is guilty of committing the corrupt practice of bribery as alleged in para 9 of the election petition ? OPP 2. Whether the nomination papers of Shri Daler Singh, respondent No. 3, were wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer, if so, its effect ? OPP 3. Whether the nomination papers of Shri Yudhvir Singh, respondent No. 4 were wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer, if so, its effect ? OPP 4. Whether Shri Joginder Singh-respondent No. 7 did not make and subscribe the oath as required under Article 173(1) of the Constitution and his nomination papers were improperly accepted, if so, its effect ? OPP 5. Whether the nomination papers of Shri Yudhvir Singh, respondent No. 4 were wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer, if so, its effect ? OPP 4. Whether Shri Joginder Singh-respondent No. 7 did not make and subscribe the oath as required under Article 173(1) of the Constitution and his nomination papers were improperly accepted, if so, its effect ? OPP 5. Whether respondent No. 1 put undue influence on the voters of the constituency by misusing the old age pension scheme and committing the corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123(1)(b) of the R.P. Act ? OPP 6. Whether the petitioner has not filed any legal and valid affidavit in support of the election petition, if so, its effect ? OPR 7. Whether the election petition lacks material facts and particulars and does not disclose any cause of action ? OPR 8. Whether the prosecution has not impleaded the necessary parties as alleged in para 4 of the preliminary objections ? OPR 9. Relief." 7. Both the parties did not lead any evidence on the said two preliminary issues and I am disposing of these issues by this order. Issue No. 6 8. The onus of this issue is upon the respondents. 9. Section 81(1) of the Act lays down that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 of the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidates at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. Section 81(3) further lay down that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under this own signatures to be a true copy of the petition. 10. Section 83 lays down as follows :- "(1) An election petition. Section 81(3) further lay down that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under this own signatures to be a true copy of the petition. 10. Section 83 lays down as follows :- "(1) An election petition. - (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the prosecution relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleged 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 the 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 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 prosecution and verified in the same manner as the petition." Thus the reading of these sections makes it clear that in order to challenge the election one election petition is required under Section 81 of the Act and the election of a returned candidate can be challenged within 45 days on one or more of the grounds as specified in sub-section (1) of Sections 100 and 101 and Section 83 makes it clear that in order to constitute a valid election petition, it shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the prosecution relies. The statement should be concise. The legislature has used words "concise statement" by fully realising the scope of an election petition that every election petition cannot be an encyclopaedia of the material facts. Therefore, a valid election petition should only contain concise statement so that the opposite party may not be prejudiced of the case which has been set up by his opponent and secondly the legislature wanted that in order to constitute a valid election petition the petitioner must state in his election petition material facts which are independently to be understood from material particulars. Thus the words "material facts" have again been introduced by the legislature purposely for the benefit of the returned candidate and the respondents so that they may be in a position to rebut those allegations and they must not be kept in dark. Sub-section (b) of Section 83 puts an additional responsibility upon the prosecution that if he alleges some corrupt practice, as mentioned in Section 123, he has to give full particulars of that corrupt practice including the full statement as possible of the names of the parties who had allegedly committed corrupt practice and the date and place of commission of such alleged corrupt practice. The reason is obvious. The allegation of corrupt practice is a very serious matter. The opposite party must not be left guessing the case of the petitioner. Rather the petitioner should be precise with full elaboration about the date, place and particulars and manner in which the alleged corrupt practice has been committed. In addition to this when a prosecution alleges a corrupt practice, it is obligatory upon him to furnish an affidavit in the prescribed Form No. 25 in support of his allegations of corrupt practice and particulars. Sub- clause (c) of Section 83(1) of the Act also makes it clear that such election petition has to be signed and verified by the prosecution in the same manner in which the proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure are signed and verified. According to the sub-section (2) of Section 83, if there is any schedule or annexure, which is an integral part of the petition, such schedule or annexure is also to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the main petition itself. 11. Now I revert to the arguments of Mr. According to the sub-section (2) of Section 83, if there is any schedule or annexure, which is an integral part of the petition, such schedule or annexure is also to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the main petition itself. 11. Now I revert to the arguments of Mr. S.C. Kapoor, the learned senior Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1, who tried to convince me that since the petitioner levelled the allegations of corrupt practice as contained in paras 9 and 1 of the election petition that respondent No. 1 allured the unemployed youth and promised them for the procurement of jobs and so much so respondent No. 1 allegedly took the bio-data of the unemployed youth and further respondent No. 1 accompanied the office staff for the distribution of old age pension by giving a representation that he was instrumental in getting the enhancement of pension, therefore, the election petition has to be supported by an affidavit and the affidavit, which is being relied upon by the petitioner, is not affidavit in the eyes of law because the amended election petition was filed in the Court on 12.3.2001, whereas the affidavit is dated 5.4.2000 and that too the affidavit is not an original document. It is the photo copy of the affidavit dated 5.4.2000 and moreover, the verification of the affidavit is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the election petition is liable to be dismissed as a whole. In support of his contentions the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has cited lot of case law such as State of Haryana v. Jit Ram, 1999(1) PLR 385, in which it was held that if an affidavit in support of an application is drafted earlier to the application, such affidavit is not a proper affidavit in support of the application. Mr. Kapoor wanted to convey that since the amended election petition was filed on 12.3.2001, there cannot be an affidavit dated 5.4.2000. Reliance was also placed on Purshottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati and others, AIR 1992 Bombay 227, where it was held that if there is an absence of endorsement of Notary on the copy of the affidavit accompanying election petition, such absence is fatal and election petition is liable to be dismissed. Reliance was also placed on Purshottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati and others, AIR 1992 Bombay 227, where it was held that if there is an absence of endorsement of Notary on the copy of the affidavit accompanying election petition, such absence is fatal and election petition is liable to be dismissed. Yet reliance was placed on Prafulla Chandra Chadoi v. Sarat Rout, AIR 1998 Orissa 41, in which it was held that if an affidavit in support of the allegation does not contain stamped endorsement with official designation of the prescribed authority, such election petition is not legally maintainable. My attention was also drawn to Shivajirao B. Patil Kawekar v. Vilasrao D. Deshmukh, JT 1999(9) SC 448, where it was held that where material facts relating to the alleged corrupt practices are not fully and adequately set out in the election petition and supporting affidavits, the petition would be liable to be dismissed for failure to satisfy the requirements of Sections 83 and 94A. Mr. Kapoor also relied upon Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh and others, 2000(8) SCC 191, where a similar proposition of law was established. 12. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Hooda relies upon Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish, JT 2001(1) SC 382 and submitted that affidavit dated 5.4.2000 is a proper affidavit even for the purpose of amended election petition, which was filed in the court on 12.3.2001 in pursuance of the order of the Court. No further affidavit was required and even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the affidavit dated 5.4.2000 has not been drawn in the prescribed form, still the election petition cannot be dismissed in limine. It is a curable defect. The trial Court will see other consequences if any arising from such defective affidavit at the time of trial itself and, therefore, the bar of Section 86(1), as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, is not attracted. 13. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and am of the considered opinion that the submissions of Mr. Kapoor are totally without any merit. Mr. Kapoor is taking as if the election petition was filed on 12.3.2001. This is not the factual position. The election petition was filed in the Registry on 5.4.2000 within a period of 45 days as required under the law. Kapoor are totally without any merit. Mr. Kapoor is taking as if the election petition was filed on 12.3.2001. This is not the factual position. The election petition was filed in the Registry on 5.4.2000 within a period of 45 days as required under the law. It was supported by an affidavit as required under Section 83 of the Act because the petitioner had levelled the allegations of corrupt practice. The respondents took the objection regarding the verification of the pleadings. In order to remove that objection, an application under Section 151 C.P.C. was moved by the petitioner, which was allowed subject to costs. In pursuance of the direction of the court the election petition with amended verification was filed on 12.3.2001. In these circumstances, the old affidavit dated 5.4.2000 cannot be held to be a bad affidavit. Otherwise also, even if it is assumed for the worst and for the benefit of the respondents that affidavit dated 5.4.2000 is bad vis-a-vis the amended election petition filed on 12.3.2001, still the election petition cannot be thrown as a whole because the petitioner is not challenging the election of respondent No. 1 alone on the ground of corrupt practice. He has also challenged on the grounds that nomination papers of certain other candidates have been illegally accepted by the Returning Officer causing material prejudice to the petitioner. Be that as it may, I have already held above that affidavit dated 5.4.2000 is a valid compliance to the amended election petition filed on 12.3.2001. Therefore, I decide issue No. 6 against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. Issue No. 7 14. The onus of this issue was upon the respondents. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as it lacks in material facts and particulars and does not disclose any cause of action. In support of his contention the learned Counsel read in extenso paras Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 18 of the election petition and stated that the allegations are vague and are of general nature and that the election of the returned candidate can only be challenged on the grounds as specified in Sections 100 and 101. In support of his contention the learned Counsel read in extenso paras Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 18 of the election petition and stated that the allegations are vague and are of general nature and that the election of the returned candidate can only be challenged on the grounds as specified in Sections 100 and 101. In fact, the petitioner has alleged in paras No. 7 and 8 that respondent No. 1 had committed the violation of model code of conduct, which is not a ground of challenge and the election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. He further submitted that from the allegations of the election petition the respondent No. 1 is not in a position to meet out the case because of lack of material facts and particulars. In these circumstances, the election petition is liable to be dismissed. Again my attention has been invited to the various judgments such as Jyoti Basu and others v. Debi Ghosal and others, AIR 1982 SC 983, Rama Kant Pandey v. Union of India, JT 1993(1) SC 440, Dev Raj Anand v. Bhagwandas and another, AIR 1971 SC 241, Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramratan Chaturvedi and others, AIR 1991 SC 2001, B. Rajgopala Rao and another v. Appayya Dora Hanumanthu and others, AIR 1990 SC 1889, Harjit Singh Mann v. S. Umrao Singh and others, AIR 1980 SC 701, Tirlochan Singh v. Karnail Singh and another, AIR 1968 P&H 416 and with the aid of all these authorities he submitted that in order to constitute corrupt practice for the purpose of Section 123(1)(A)(b) it must be alleged in the election petition and established that there was any bargain on the part of respondent No. 1 in getting the votes. The petitioner has not alleged in this regard and there is not an iota of averment with regard to the consideration allegedly paid by respondent No. 1 to the unemployed youth. In view of all this vagueness this election petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. 15. On the contrary, Mr. Hooda, the learned Counsel for the election petitioner submitted that there is a complete compliance of the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. In view of all this vagueness this election petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. 15. On the contrary, Mr. Hooda, the learned Counsel for the election petitioner submitted that there is a complete compliance of the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. The averments of the election petition disclose a complete cause of action and the test is whether the allegations of the election petition if remain unrebutted could upset the election of respondent No. 1 or not. Every case has to depend on its own pleadings. Reliance was placed on Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malanger and others, 2000(1) SCC 261 in which it was held that only material facts are to be incorporated in the election petition which are different from material particulars. If the election petition makes out a triable case, it would be highly improbable to reject the election petition in limine. Reliance was also placed on D. Ramchandran v. R.V. Janakiraman and others, AIR 1999 SC 1128 (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10). My attention was also invited to Harbans Singh Jalal, Ex-MLA, Bathina v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and others, 1997(2) PLR 778 (para 12 onwards). 16. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties for the disposal of this issue and am of the opinion that the election petition discloses a cause of action. It contains concise statement of material facts and also the full particulars of the corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 83(a) and (b) of the Act. The petitioner has specifically alleged that on particular date, time and place respondent No. 1 with his supporters and agents visited the villages, assembled the persons, allegedly made promises, allegedly distributed the pamphlets, allegedly collected the bio-datas, allegedly distributed the old age pension in order to promote his chances of success. All these details are sufficient to intimate respondent No. 1 that on what count his election is being challenged. If those averments remain unrebutted at trial, it can certainly affect the fate of respondent No. 1 to the legislative assembly. 17. In this view of the matter, I decide issue No. 7 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. 18. Resultantly, the objections of the contesting respondents under Section 86 of the Act are hereby rejected. 19. If those averments remain unrebutted at trial, it can certainly affect the fate of respondent No. 1 to the legislative assembly. 17. In this view of the matter, I decide issue No. 7 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. 18. Resultantly, the objections of the contesting respondents under Section 86 of the Act are hereby rejected. 19. Now I proceed to decide the election petition on merit i.e. on issues No. 1 to 5, 8 and 9. To come up for the evidence of the petitioner on 24.5.2001 PF and DM be deposited within three days and the documents, if any, be also produced within, the said period. Order accordingly.