ORDER This petition is filed under Order VI Rule 16 r/w Sections 21 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the R.P. Act') to strike out the pleadings. 2. The petitioner herein is the 1st respondent (returned candidate) and the 1st respondent herein is the election petitioner in the main election petition. 3. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present petition may be portrayed as follows: The petitioner herein filed the present application alleging that the 1st respondent herein filed the main election petition to declare his election held in April, 2009 for Vijayawada Parliamentary Constituency as void and to declare the 1st respondent herein as validly elected. The 1st respondent herein alleged in the election petition that the petitioner herein married one Janaki during the life time of his spouse, L. Padma and begot a son by name Harman and thereby committed an offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 IPC and Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act. He omitted to show the said Janaki as the dependent and not disclosed her assets in the affidavit filed by him along with the nomination paper and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 125-A of the R.P. Act and he intentionally omitted to produce a document before a public servant though he is bound to produce such document to the Returning Officer and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 175 CLP.C. But, the petitioner herein denied the said allegations as vague, not true and not relevant for the purpose of deciding whether the election of the petitioner herein is void. The 1st respondent herein only pleaded that the petitioner herein is liable to be punished under Indian Penal Code. The Election Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide the validity of his election only on the grounds mentioned in the R.P. Act and it has no jurisdiction to decide whether the petitioner herein committed any offence under Indian Penal Code and to disqualify him. Petitioner herein stated that in the affidavit filed along with nomination paper, he had shown the assets and liabilities of himself, his spouse L. Padma who is alive and his three dependent sons. The said Janaki is not his wife or dependent. The allegation with regard to incurring excess expenditure is vague, untrue and irrelevant. Petitioner herein stated that in the affidavit filed along with nomination paper, he had shown the assets and liabilities of himself, his spouse L. Padma who is alive and his three dependent sons. The said Janaki is not his wife or dependent. The allegation with regard to incurring excess expenditure is vague, untrue and irrelevant. The allegations that he is the Chairman of Lanco Foundation and spending money to bribe and lure the voters, that after announcing general elections, dated 02-03-2009, he has given huge advertisement to promote his political career and lured the electorate through Lanco Power Plants and he indulged in corrupt practices are vague and false. Lanco Foundations is Trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act whereas Lanco Power Plants is registered as a public limited company under the Indian Companies Act and not he is personally responsible and his election cannot be set aside for the alleged acts of the Trust and Company. He is neither Chairman of the Trust or Director of the Company. He seized (sic. ceased) to be the Chairman of the Trust or Director of the Company w.e.f. 2003 onwards. The 1st respondent herein has not has not stated the material facts and material particulars like who are the voters that were bribed and lured to strengthen his political career. The allegation that he committed grave irregularities and illegalities and deliberately influenced the voters in his favour in violation of the Conduct of Election Rules and instructions issued by the Election Commission and he is liable to be disqualified are vague and devoid of material facts and material particulars. The 1st respondent herein has not stated which facts are true and he has not stated the material facts and material particulars of corrupt practices. The 1st respondent herein who claims to belong to the freedom fighters family and practising as an advocate has secured only 868 votes out of the total votes of 10,88,297 polled and lost the deposit also, whereas the petitioner herein received 4,29,394 votes and declared elected. The intention of the 1st respondent herein is to tarnish his image and reputation in the public out of jealousy and prejudice and with mala fide intention of harassing him. The election petition does not disclose any complete cause of action and hence, he prays to strike out the pleadings and dismiss the election petition. 4. The intention of the 1st respondent herein is to tarnish his image and reputation in the public out of jealousy and prejudice and with mala fide intention of harassing him. The election petition does not disclose any complete cause of action and hence, he prays to strike out the pleadings and dismiss the election petition. 4. The 1st respondent herein filed counter denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same. The petitioner herein under frustration and to gain time filed the present petition without having any base. The petitioner is being one among the top five richest persons in the State and politically highly influenced being the member of Parliament and he is trying to influence the 1st respondent under hook or crook by whatever means by gaining time. It is stated in the election petition that Janaki is the second wife of the petitioner herein and she is the mother of petitioner's third son Harman supported by birth certificate issued by GHMC, wherein it is stated that the name of the father as 'L. Raja Gopal' and the name of the mother as 'L. J anaki'. In case Harman mentioned in the election affidavit is different from the Harman mentioned in the birth certificate issued by GHMC, the same can be proved during the trial. The petitioner herein deliberately denying the averments of the main petition and advised the 1st respondent to file criminal cases before the competent courts for bigamy instead of trying main election petition. The High Court Election Tribunal is right forum and the only authority having jurisdiction to decide the falsehood, fraudulent practices, illegalities and malpractices committed during the General Election by any contestant in the general elections and to avoid the present proceedings, the petitioner herein filed the present petition. The details to be given in the affidavit filed along with the election nomination papers is totally falsehood as every contesting candidate has to file complete and true details of all his family members and their assets, including the contesting candidates as the proforma given by the Election Commission in true and accurate nature. The denial of the petitioner that Smt. Janaki wife of L. Rajagopal is an issue to be decided in this competent Election High Court Tribunal. The denial of the petitioner that Smt. Janaki wife of L. Rajagopal is an issue to be decided in this competent Election High Court Tribunal. The petitioner herein intentionally and knowingly suppressed the truth before the Election Commission in his nomination papers and got elected based on falsehood declaration, which is sufficient to declare his election as null and void. The said Janaki filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage with her husband before the Family Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.997 of 2006. The marriage of the petitioner with Janaki is known to all in Vijayawada and with regard to that marriage, there were several disputes. The said Janaki obtained divorce from the Court on 17-06-2008 from her 2nd husband A. Adinarayana Murthy. The petitioner hails from very respectable family, faced several allegations during the year 2005 and 2009 with regard to his second marriage with Janaki and to the extra marital life led with her. The petitioner spent lakhs of rupees during the elections contrary to the model code of conduct issued by the Government. After the party announced the petitioner as contestant for Lok Sabha, he issued full page advertisement on 24-03-2009 in Sakshi Daily newspaper and the expenditure towards said advertisement was not shown in his election expenditure. It is the rule that the election expenditure of a contesting candidate will be accounted from the date of filing of the nominations till the date of declaration of results. The petitioner suppressed huge expenditure spent on newspaper advertisement and created widespread impression among the voters, which attract corrupt practices. It is further stated that on 06-02-2009 the Vice Chairman of Lanco Foundation donated Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Bezawada Bar Association, Vijayawada to lure the members for votes, which is nothing but an electoral malpractice to attract the members of association and to gain votes. The petitioner being a National Political Party member i.e., Indian National Congress, who was elected as Member of Parliament, violated Article 99 of the Indian Constitution. He violated the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act and the provisions of Indian Penal Code and also committed electoral offences. The 1st respondent herein complained against the petitioner by submitting a report to the Chief Election Commissioner about violation of model code of conduct, trespassing the electoral process, highly influenced the officials and suppressing material facts while submitting nomination papers along with the affidavit. The 1st respondent herein complained against the petitioner by submitting a report to the Chief Election Commissioner about violation of model code of conduct, trespassing the electoral process, highly influenced the officials and suppressing material facts while submitting nomination papers along with the affidavit. The petitioner spent huge expenditure by giving wide publicity through television channels and supplying man paddling rickshaws at free of cost. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Now the point for determination in this petition is whether there are any grounds to strike out the pleadings and whether the election petition is liable to be rejected as it does not disclose cause of action? 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein con tended that the pleading of grounds for charge as required under Section 81 of the RP. Act does not disclose anyone or more grounds as specified under Section 100 of the R.P. Act, that the requirements under Sections 81 and 100 of the RP. Act are not satisfied, that it is obligatory on the part of the 1st respondent herein to give requisite material facts and particulars to declare the election as void and even if the allegations in the election petition are taken as true and correct, they are so vague and general, that the averments in the election petition are unnecessary and hence, he prays to strike out the pleadings and consequently reject the election petition as it does not disclose cause of action. 7. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein contended that the allegations in the election petition coupled with the documents would clearly go to show that the returned candidate filed a false affidavit known to be false, that the assets of the second wife has not been shown, that he indulged in corrupt practices by publishing in the paper to lure the voters, that he gave huge advertisements to promote his political career, that he has committed offences punishable under Indian Penal Code and Hindu Marriage Act, that by filing false affidavit suppressing the fact, he has committed the offence of bigamy, that he suppressed the assets of his second wife, that he lured the voters by issuing bank cheques and amounts in the name of Lanco Foundation, that at this stage, if the allegations are taken as true and correct, they made out a prima facie case under Section 100 of the R.P. Act and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the plaint can be rejected on any of the grounds as mentioned in the said Rule. One such ground is that where plaint does not disclose cause of action. There cannot be any dispute that though the provisions of the CPC in their entirety do not apply to the Election Petitions, but Order VII Rule 11 CPC applies to such petitions. The High Court has, therefore, jurisdiction to reject an election petition, if it does not disclose a cause of action. The question whether the election petition discloses any cause of action or not should be determined on the basis of averments made in the petition and annexures thereon and nothing else. In other words, the power to reject the election petition on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action can be exercised by this Court only when it comes to the conclusion that even if all the allegations set out in the election petition are established, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. The Court must apply its mind for finding out a cause of action. For the said purpose, the election petition should be read as a whole. Such reading should be meaningful and not formal. The Court must apply its mind for finding out a cause of action. For the said purpose, the election petition should be read as a whole. Such reading should be meaningful and not formal. With regard to cause of action, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Omprakash Srivasthava v. Union of India (1) (2006) 6 SCC 207 , wherein it is held thus: (para 12) "The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense" cause of action" means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, as noted above the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary, to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action." 9. There is no dispute that the proof required to be established in the election petition is the proof required to be established with regard to the charge in a criminal case. In a criminal case, it is settled law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Baldev Singh Mann v. Surjit Singh Dhiman (2) AIR 2009 SC 1045 = 2009 (2) SCJ 386, wherein it is held thus: "The law is now well settled that charge of a corrupt practice in an election petition should not be proved almost like the criminal charge. The standard of proof is high and the burden of proof is on the election petitioner. Mere preponderance of probabilities are not enough, as may be the case in a civil dispute. The standard of proof is high and the burden of proof is on the election petitioner. Mere preponderance of probabilities are not enough, as may be the case in a civil dispute. Allegations of corrupt practices should be clear and precise and the charge should be proved to the hilt as in a criminal trial by clear, cogent and credible evidence." The test beyond reasonable doubt is really the estimate which a prudent man makes the probabilities, having regard to what must be his duty as a result of his estimate in a criminal case where the proof of the case for the prosecution. It is the estimate of probabilities arrived from the practical stand point by a prudent man. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures or suspicions do not take the place of legal proof, but at the time of framing charge in a criminal case, what is required to be seen is whether the charge sheet and the documents relied upon including the FIR and the statement of witnesses, if accepted as true at that stage would constitute a prima facie case. Prima facie evidence means, on the face of it, there is a ground for proceeding. It is not the same thing as proof which comes later that the Court has to find whether the accused is guilty. It signifies that on first examination the matter appears to be self evident from the facts. In common law jurisprudence, prima facie case denotes evidence which (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. Therefore, at this stage in the election petition, it has to be seen whether the allegations if accepted as true and correct, constitute a charge against the returned candidate for proceeding further. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be tested or weighed at this stage. 10. Sections 80 and 81 of the RP. Act lay down the only method prescribed by law in which the validity of the election can be impugned which is by an election Petition before this Court. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be tested or weighed at this stage. 10. Sections 80 and 81 of the RP. Act lay down the only method prescribed by law in which the validity of the election can be impugned which is by an election Petition before this Court. Under Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 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 to the High Court be any candidate at such election or any elector within 45 days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. Under Section 83 of the R.P. Act, an Election Petition (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth all full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges including full statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and 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 verification of the pleadings. Clauses (1) and (2) of Section 83 make it mandatory on the petitioner to furnish a concise statement not only material facts necessary to constitute cause of action but also the particulars necessary to put the returned candidate in notice of the details of the charge he is calling upon to meet. If bald or vague statements are made, they do not specify the requirements of the Section. 11. Section 123 of the R.P. Act deals with corrupt practices. All the sub-sections of Section 123 of the R.P. Act refer to the acts of a 'candidate' or his election agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. In order to establish any of the grounds contained in Section 100 of the R.P. Act, every fact requisite for satisfying the elements would be a material fact and must be set out in the election petition. In order to establish any of the grounds contained in Section 100 of the R.P. Act, every fact requisite for satisfying the elements would be a material fact and must be set out in the election petition. The requisite pleadings of all constituents of corrupt practices must be alleged in the election petition. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Samant N. Balakrishna and another v. George Fernandez and others (3) 1969 (3) SCC 238 , it is held thus: "From our examination of all the cases that were cited before us we are satisfied that an election petition must set out a ground or charge. In other words, the kind of corrupt practice which was perpetrated together with material facts on which a charge can be made out must be stated, it is obvious that merely repeating the words of the statute does not amount to a proper statement of facts and the S. requires that material facts of corrupt practices must be stated. If the material facts of the corrupt practice are stated more or better particulars of the charge may be given later, but where the material facts themselves are missing it is impossible to think that the charge has been made or can be later amplified. This is tantamount to the making of a fresh petition." From the above decision, it is clear that the material facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated in the election petition and omission of any single material fact would lead to incomplete cause of action. 12. In another decision reported in Kamalnath v. Sudesh Verma (4) (2002) 2 SCC 410 = 2002 (4) ALT 13.2 (DNSC), it is held thus: "After taking note of all the earlier decisions, the court held that to plead corrupt practice as contemplated by law it has to be specifically alleged that the corrupt practices were committed with the consent of the candidate and that a particular electoral right of a person was affected and it cannot be left to time, chance or conjecture for the Court to draw inference by adopting an involved process of reasoning." 13. On the aspect of incurring expenditure between two relevant dates as required under Section 77 of the R.P. Act, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and another (5) (1996) 1 SCC 169 , wherein it is held thus: "Assuming the contents of the video cassettes amount to the kind of speech or act which is a corrupt practice under