JUDGMENT : 1. This application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed for rejection of the Election Petition No. 03 of 2018, in limine. The subject matter of the said Election Petition is, the General Election to Gujarat Legislative Assembly, 2017 for the ‘58 – Dholka Constituency’. The present applicant is the contesting respondent of the said Election Petition, wherein the election of the present applicant – Mr. Bhupendrasinh Manubha Chudasama as the returned candidate, is challenged by Mr. Ashwinbhai Kamsubhai Rathod - the present respondent No.2. The returned candidate – the applicant, at present, is Minister of Law in the Government of Gujarat. 2. Heard learned advocates. 3.1 Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned senior advocate for the applicant - who is the returned candidate and who is contesting respondent No.2 in the Election Petition, has submitted that, the election petition needs to be dismissed in limine, and it need not go for trial. 3.2 It is submitted that, the election petition does not disclose any cause of action, as known to law. It is therefore required to be rejected in limine in view of Rule 11 (a) of Order VII of the CPC. 3.3 It is further submitted that, the election petition also lacks statement of material facts and it thus violates the requirement of Section 83 (1) (a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘the Act, 1951’ for short). 3.4 It is further submitted that, though corrupt practice is alleged, the election petition does not contain full particulars in that regard and it thus violates the requirement of Section 83 (1) (b) of the Act, 1951. 3.5 It is submitted that, the plaint – the election petition is therefore required to be rejected, in view of Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with the provisions of the Act, 1951, more particularly Section 83 (1) (a) and Section 83 (1) (b) thereof. 3.6 Learned senior advocate for the applicant has, in support of his submissions, also taken this Court through various provisions of the Act, 1951, more particularly Sections 100 (1) (ii) & (iii) and 123(7) thereof. Reference is also made by him to Sections 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 86 of the Act, 1951. 3.6 Learned senior advocate for the applicant has, in support of his submissions, also taken this Court through various provisions of the Act, 1951, more particularly Sections 100 (1) (ii) & (iii) and 123(7) thereof. Reference is also made by him to Sections 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 86 of the Act, 1951. 3.7 In support of his contentions, learned senior advocate for the applicant has taken this Court extensively through the averments made in the Election Petition and has submitted that, the averments are incapable of meeting with the requirement under Section 83 of the Act, 1951. In support of his submissions, learned senior advocate for the applicant has also relied on the contents of the written statement dated 24.03.2018 filed by the respondent no.13 in the Election Petition. Learned senior advocate for the applicant has also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar versus Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar reported in (2009) 9 SCC 310 and U.S. Sasidharan versus K. Karunakaran reported in (1989) 4 SCC 482 . It is submitted that this application be allowed and the Election Petition be dismissed at the threshold. 4.1 On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Kavina, learned senior advocate for the opponent no.2 – who is the petitioner in the Election Petition has contested this application and has submitted that, this application be dismissed and the election petition be tried on merits. 4.2 It is submitted by him that, the election petition does disclose the cause of action and Rule 11 (a) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would not come in play. 4.3 It is further submitted that, the election petition does contain statement of material facts and it does not violate Section 83 (1) (a) of the Act, 1951. 4.4 It is further submitted that, true it is, that corrupt practice is alleged in the petition, but the election petition also contains full particulars in that regard and it also complies with the requirement of Section 83 (1) (b) of the Act, 1951. It is submitted that the plaint – the election petition may not be rejected, without trial. In support of his submissions, he has extensively taken this Court through the averments made in the Election Petition. It is submitted that this application be dismissed. 5. It is submitted that the plaint – the election petition may not be rejected, without trial. In support of his submissions, he has extensively taken this Court through the averments made in the Election Petition. It is submitted that this application be dismissed. 5. The point at issue before this Court is, whether the election petition needs to be rejected without trial, as contended by the present applicant – the returned candidate, or it needs to go for trial. While considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC in an Election Petition, what scrutiny should be made by the High Court, can be traced in the broad principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in various decisions, particularly the decisions in the case of (i) Ashraf Kokkur Vs. K.V.Abdul Khader ( AIR 2015 SC 147 ) and (ii) Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju Vs. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy ( AIR 2018 SC 3012 ). To answer the point at issue as noted above, while keeping in view the broad principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the above referred decisions, it needs to be ascertained, whether the election petition discloses any cause of action, and whether, from the statements in the election petition, does it appear that the said election petition is barred by any law, more particularly the Representation of the People Act, 1951. For this purpose, this Court has taken into consideration the averments made in the election petition. The memo of the election petition runs into 48 pages. It would not be proper to quote all those 48 pages, in this order. What is required for this Court is to ascertain, whether on the reading of the election petition, this Court is in a position to find any cause of action for the petitioner, and whether the election petition contains statements of material facts as required under Section 83 (1) (a) of the Act, 1951. Since corrupt practice is also alleged in the petition, it would also be necessary to find out whether the election petition contains full particulars in that regard, as required under Section 83 (1) (b) of the Act, 1951. On conjoint consideration of all the averments, grounds and other details as contained in the Election Petition, this Court finds as under. Since corrupt practice is also alleged in the petition, it would also be necessary to find out whether the election petition contains full particulars in that regard, as required under Section 83 (1) (b) of the Act, 1951. On conjoint consideration of all the averments, grounds and other details as contained in the Election Petition, this Court finds as under. 6.1 The subject matter of the Election Petition No.03 of 2018 is, the General Election to Gujarat Legislative Assembly, 2017 for the ‘58 – Dholka Constituency’. 6.2 The said election was held on 14.12.2017. The counting and declaration of result was on 18.12.2017. The final result sheet, as published by the ‘Returning Officer, 58 - Dholka L.A.C. & Prant Officer, Dholka Sub Division, Dholka’ dated 18.12.2017 is on record and part of the election petition as Annexure - P-1. The said annexure is duly signed by the petitioner and verified by him. The averments in that regard are made in Para : 2.1 of the petition. 6.3 As per the said final result sheet, total number of valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner are 71203 votes. Total number of valid votes cast in favour of the respondent no.2 i.e. the present applicant are 71530 votes. 6.4 The present applicant – original respondent no.2 got elected with the margin of 327 votes, against the original petitioner. The break-up of the above total votes (through EVMs and Postal Ballot Papers) is as under. Petitioner in the Election Petition Respondent No.2 in the Election Petition (the present applicant) Difference of Votes in favour of the present applicant EVMs 70675 71189 514 Postal Ballots 528 341 -187 Total 71203 71530 327 6.5 Total votes received by the Returning Officer through postal ballot papers were 1356. Out of these 1356, the Returning Officer has rejected 429 votes, as per the final result sheet, as published by him under his seal and signature. 6.6 Thus, the number of postal ballots rejected (429 votes) are more than the winning margin (of 327 votes) of the returned candidate i.e. the present applicant. 6.7 Apart from various grievances voiced in the petition, it is also the grievance of the petitioner that, the said rejection of the votes, received through postal ballot papers, was illegal on various grounds pleaded in the petition. 6.7 Apart from various grievances voiced in the petition, it is also the grievance of the petitioner that, the said rejection of the votes, received through postal ballot papers, was illegal on various grounds pleaded in the petition. It is also stated in the petition that, as the consequence of this, the result of the election in question, in so far as it concerns the present applicant - the returned candidate, has been materially affected, since the victory margin of 327 votes was less than the postal votes rejected. The averments in this regard, in detail, are made in Para : 2.3 & 2.4 of the petition. This Court has taken into consideration those averments. In substance, it is to the effect that, the rejection of those votes, received through postal ballot papers, was illegal, both - on merits and in procedure. 6.8 In view of above, this Court finds that, the election petition not only discloses the cause of action, it also contains sufficient details, with material facts, on which the petitioner relies, with statement, as required under Section 83 (1)(a) of the Act, 1951. 6.9 There is no infirmity with regard to any other procedural aspect, such as signature, affidavit and/or verification by the petitioner. The Election Petition therefore can not be dismissed in limine as contended by the applicant. It needs to be tried. 7. There is one more dimension of the matter. The petitioner has also alleged corrupt practice in the petition. This being so, only concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies, may not be sufficient. It would require something more. This Court has found from the averments in the petition that, the election petition also contains full particulars with regard to corrupt practice, as required under Section 83 (1)(b) of the Act, 1951. The crux of the averments in the petition in that regard (Para : 3 and 3.1 of the petition) is that, rejection of the postal ballots, the details of which are noted above, was not mere an error on the part of the Returning Officer, but was a well-thought design by the present applicant – original respondent no.2, who at the relevant time was Revenue Minister in the Government of Gujarat. At the relevant time, one Mr. Gaurang Prajapati was the Deputy Collector (SDM, Dholka), who, by his very designation, would be the concerned Returning Officer. Said Mr. At the relevant time, one Mr. Gaurang Prajapati was the Deputy Collector (SDM, Dholka), who, by his very designation, would be the concerned Returning Officer. Said Mr. Prajapati was transferred after the Code of Conduct was put in force and in his place, Mr. Dhaval Jani (the respondent no.13 in the election petition) was posted (vide Para : 2.11 of the petition). It is stated in the petition that, the same was done to procure assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the present applicant, in the said election. It is also pleaded in the petition that, though as per the standing instructions of the Election Commission of India, the postal ballots are to be counted before the counting of the votes in EVMs, in the present case, the same was not done. It was done only when the final figures were available after counting of votes in EVMs was over and when it was realised that the margin was narrow, the exercise of counting of postal ballots was concluded and at that time, 429 votes were invalidated / rejected, leading to declaring the respondent no.2 as an elected candidate by the margin of 327 votes. This is pleaded in terms, in Para : 3 & 3.1 of the Election Petition, by the petitioner. This Court has taken into consideration those averments and on that basis, satisfaction is recorded to the effect that, the election petition also contains full particulars with regard to corrupt practice, to be tried, as required under Section 83 (1)(b) of the Act, 1951. This Court also finds that, there is no infirmity with regard to any procedural aspect, such as signature, affidavit and/or verification by the petitioner in support of those averments. The Election Petition therefore needs to be tried, on that count as well. 8.1 In view of above, this Court finds that, the Election Petition No. 03 of 2018 discloses cause of action and meets with all the requirements of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, more particularly Section 83 thereof and would require trial to adjudicate, whether the election in question needs to be declared as void, for any of the grounds contained in Section 100 (1) (b) and/ or Section 100 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act, 1951. The said Section, to the extent relevant, reads as under. “100. The said Section, to the extent relevant, reads as under. “100. Grounds for declaring election to be void (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if [the High Court] is of opinion- (a) xxx or (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; or (c) xxx or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) by xxx or (ii) by xxx or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by xxx, [the High Court] shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.” 8.2 If the petitioner is unable to prove his case, the Election Petition may ultimately be dismissed, but it can not be rejected at the threshold invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as prayed by the applicant. This application therefore needs to be dismissed. 9.1 The reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar (supra) and U.S. Sasidharan (supra) would not take the case of the present applicant any further, in view of the findings noted by this Court above. 9.2 With regard to the submission of learned senior advocate for the applicant, based on the contents of the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. Dhaval Jani, Deputy Collector, against whom allegations are made of favouritism, (and who is respondent no.13 in the Election Petition), it needs to be recorded that, this itself would be a factor against the applicant, for the purpose of deciding this application, however since this Court has considered this application on merits, and after due scrutiny has found that, the application needs to be dismissed on merits, the said de-merit in the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, need not be discussed further. 10. It is noted that in the Election Petition, the petitioner has also prayed that he be declared elected, in place of the present applicant. This being so, Section 82 of the Act, 1951 would come in play. All the candidates need to be joined as party respondents in the petition. 10. It is noted that in the Election Petition, the petitioner has also prayed that he be declared elected, in place of the present applicant. This being so, Section 82 of the Act, 1951 would come in play. All the candidates need to be joined as party respondents in the petition. There were total 13 candidates. The petitioner has joined all of them as party respondents. They are respondents No.1 to 12. The requirement of Section 82 of the Act, 1951 also thus stands satisfied. In totality, this Court finds that this application needs to be dismissed. 11. For the reasons recorded above, this application is dismissed.