JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J.:- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. Issues No.2, 3 and 6 were treated, as preliminary issues vide order dated 21.05.2008, which are reproduced as follows: “2. Whether paras 2 to 8 of the Election Petition lacks material facts and material particulars and these struck off under Order 6, Rule 16 CPC? OPR 3. If issue No.2 is decided affirmatively, whether the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPR 6. Whether the complete copies of the Election Petition have not been filed with main Election Petition. If so to what effect? OPR. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not pressed issue No.6 during the course of arguments. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. However, both the sides addressed arguments on issue Nos. 2 and 3. 4. Election of respondent has been challenged on the grounds specified in Section 100(1) (b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which reads as under:­ “Section-100: Grounds for declaring election to be void: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if (the High Court) is of the opinion: (a) xx xx xx (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.” 5. Corrupt practices have been defined under Section 123 of the Act. Section 123 of the Act is reproduced as under:­- “123:- Corrupt practices: The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purpose of this Act:­ (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person [with the consent of the candidate or his election agent], with the free exercise of any electoral right...... (4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other Person, [with the consent of a candidate or his election agent], of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate’s election. 6. Before the question of commission of corrupt practices as specified under Section 123 of the Act is examined, it is necessary to examine the allegations to find out whether the allegations fall within the purview of Section 100 (1) (b) of the Act. Under this clause, the alleged corrupt practices must be attributed to the returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person having committed such practice with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent. It is in this context that the allegations mentioned in the petition are to be examined. 7. The allegations of the corrupt practice are contained in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the petition, which are reproduced below: 3. That it is important to mention here that respondent throughout his campaign levelled personal baseless allegations and called the petitioner as rapist and murderer. Although the campaign of the petitioner was highly successful which left no doubt in his mind and in the minds of his supporters regarding his winnability. The petitioner received over whelming response from the general public on account of his being honest and forthright Sr. Medical Officer and also for the good work done by the Congress Government during the last five years, but all this was negated by the false and baseless personal allegations against the petitioner by the respondent relating to of rape, murder and seeking the ticket of the Congress Party on monetary considerations. 4. That it is also important to mention here that the election in the Constituency were held on 13.02.2007 and respondent succeeded in publishing this news in the Daily Tribune on 09.02.2007 i.e. at the fag end of election compaign which materially affected the result of the election. After the result, the petitioner stood at No.2 after the respondent. 5. 4. That it is also important to mention here that the election in the Constituency were held on 13.02.2007 and respondent succeeded in publishing this news in the Daily Tribune on 09.02.2007 i.e. at the fag end of election compaign which materially affected the result of the election. After the result, the petitioner stood at No.2 after the respondent. 5. That the petitioner, his voters, supporters and activists were absolutely stunned at the manner this filthy and scandalous campaign was carried out by the respondent. The above mentioned false allegations changed the mind of the voters at large. As stated above, the petitioner has already brought this corrupt­ practice of the respondent in the notice of concerned observer which was duly received by him. Apart from this, a copy of the complaint was also sent to the Election Commission of India and to the SHO of Police Station, Mahilpur.” 8. From the bare reading of these paragraphs, it appears that details of the speeches with date, time and place have been given. The allegations are completely without any specific averments. 9. Apart from the above, even it is not mentioned anywhere in the petition that the news item referred to in the Tribune Newspaper was published the consent of the respondent or his election agent. As a matter of fact, the ingredients of sub-section 100 (1) (b) read with Section 123 of the Act have not been constituted. 10. Procedure for the trial of the Election Petition is prescribed under section 87 of the Act, which inter alia, require the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure to be applied for trial of the Suits, as nearly as may be possible. Thus it is necessary that the Election Petition must disclose the cause of action. In the present case, only grounds for challenging the election is the corrupt practices. No details whatsoever to constitute any of the corrupt practice as specified under Section 123 of the Act, has been mentioned in the petition. As a matter of fact, the petition do not disclose any cause of action for filing the same. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajive Gandhi, AIR 1986 Supreme Court, 1253, has held as follows:­ “ 11. As a matter of fact, the petition do not disclose any cause of action for filing the same. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajive Gandhi, AIR 1986 Supreme Court, 1253, has held as follows:­ “ 11. In view of this pronouncement there is no escape from the conclusion that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. So also it emerges from the aforesaid decision that appropriate orders in exercise of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure 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. This Court Samant’s case (1969) 3 SCC 238: (AIR 1969 SC 1201) has expressed itself in no unclear 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. 21. There is a glaring omission to mention the names of the workers said to have been­ employed by the respondent or his agents who have allegedly painted the slogans. So also no material particulars are given as regards the vehicles on which the said slogans have been said to have been painted. There are no material particulars or facts. We are of the view that inasmuch as the material facts and particulars in regard to this alleged practice were not mentioned and the High Court was justified in taking the view that it had taken. 25. In this case also, no time, date and place of the speeches delivered by the respondent have been mentioned. No exact extracts from the speeches are quoted. Nor have the material facts showing that such statements imputed to the respondent were indeed made been stated. No allegations” is made to the effect that it was in order to prejudice the election of any candidate or in order to further the prospects of the election of the respondent. The essential ingredients of the alleged corrupt practice have thus not been spelled out. 34. No allegations” is made to the effect that it was in order to prejudice the election of any candidate or in order to further the prospects of the election of the respondent. The essential ingredients of the alleged corrupt practice have thus not been spelled out. 34. On a scrutiny of the averments made in the election petition it is evident that it is not pleaded as to who has distributed the pamphlets, when they were distributed, where they were distributed and to whom they were distributed, in whose presence they were distributed etc. etc. Pleading is ominously silent on these aspects. It has not even been pleaded that any particular person with the consent of the respondent or his election agent distributed the said pamphlets. (In fact, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that no election agent had been appointed by the respondent during the entire elections). 11. In the case of Ravinder Singh Vs. Janmeia Singh and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3026, it has been observed’ as under: “7. The election petition is singularly silent of any such averment that the returned candidate, even if, it be assumed for the sake of the arguments, had published and distributed certain documents, (Annexure A-I to A-7) as alleged in the election petition either himself or through any other persons with his consent, that those statements were false and that the returned candidate either believed them to be false or did not believe them to be true, though in paragraph 9 of the election petition which has been verified as correct on the basis of legal advice, this requirement emanating from Section 123 (4) has been mentioned but without any assertion that the returned candidate in this case published the false statements knowing them to be false and/or not believing them to be true. The submission of Mr. Talwar, that at the trial, the petitioner could have said so in his evidence is futile. It is an established proposition that no evidence can be led on a plea not raised in the pleadings and that no amount of evidence can cure defect in the pleadings. 8. In the face of the pleadings, no charge could have been framed insofar as corrupt practice under Section 123 (4) of the Act is concerned. It is an established proposition that no evidence can be led on a plea not raised in the pleadings and that no amount of evidence can cure defect in the pleadings. 8. In the face of the pleadings, no charge could have been framed insofar as corrupt practice under Section 123 (4) of the Act is concerned. We need not detain ourselves to consider the allegations in this behalf, different they were to be pleaded specifically and the details were to be furnished separately to give a clear picture of cause of action. Undue influence is an inference which arises on facts pleaded and proved. Mere averment that appellant exercised undue influence in absence of precise facts, namely, the nature of such influence, the persons on whom it was exercised and time and place of it the pleadings in paragraphs (i) and (j) fell short of the requirement in law. Allegations fishing and’ roving, as were pleaded in this case could not be said to be sufficient compliance of S. 83 (1) (b).” 13. In view of the above settled legal position, issue Nos. 2 and 3 are hereby decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. The present petition is, accordingly, rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with costs of Rs.10,000/-. ----------------