JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel as well as Mr. A. Bimol, learned senior counsel for the applicant, respondent in the election petition and Mr. N. Mohendro, learned counsel for the election petitioner, respondent in this application. 2. The present application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Section 81(1) and Section 100(1) (d) (i) of the same Act by the respondent in the election petition seeking dismissal of the Election Petition on the ground that there is no triable issue left and the issues raised by the election petitioner had already been decided by the Election Commission of India as well as by the Criminal Court including this High Court on an earlier occasion. 3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. N. Ibotombi on behalf of the applicant submits that the only plea taken by the election petitioner in the election petition in challenging the election of the applicant is that the nomination of the present applicant, the respondent in the election petition, had been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer (RO). It has also been alleged by the election petitioner that in the affidavit filed by the applicant, respondent in the election petition, while giving his highest educational qualification, it has been stated that he had completed Master of Arts in History from Manipur University (MU) in 2003. According to the election petitioner, either the applicant respondent had given a wrong information about his highest educational qualification about having obtained Master of Arts in History from MU in 2003 or had concealed his real identity by using the surname “Thokchom”, though his real surname is “Oinam” as mentioned in the Manipur University records. The aforesaid pleadings have been reflected in para Nos. 5,7,12 and 23 of the election petition. 4. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel submits that this allegation of falsification of his educational qualification and real identity is the only ground raised in the election petition in challenging the election of the applicant and that the RO had wrongly accepted the nomination of the applicant respondent, though he had given wrong information about these. It has been submitted that no other allegations relating to electoral malpractice or any other allegations have been made by the election petitioner. It has been submitted that no other allegations relating to electoral malpractice or any other allegations have been made by the election petitioner. The aforesaid allegation is the only ground taken in the election petition on the basis of which, the petitioner has sought for declaring the election of the respondent (applicant herein) as void and for prosecution of the respondent for giving false information under section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel that these are allegations which had been already raised and decided in favour of the respondent by the Election Commission of India on an earlier occasion, when one N. Singhajit, a candidate in the 10th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election who was defeated by the present respondent in the said election had filed a complaint before the Election Commission making similar complaint alleging that no person by the name of Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh had obtained a Master of Arts Degree in History from Manipur University in 2003. Further, it was also alleged by him that in the relevant records of electoral roll of Khundrakpam Constituency issued by the Chief Election Officer, Manipur, 2011, the name of the respondent was recorded as “Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh, s/o Th. Navakumar Singh” of Polling Station number 1/9, Sl. No. 373, House No. 102, aged 44 years respectively, though he in reality is “Oinam Lokeshwar Singh, s/o Oinam Khoidumba”. 6. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel states that after the said complaint was lodged before the Election Commission of India against the applicant respondent, the Election Commission of India directed the Returning Officer to hold an enquiry, vide order dated 12.09.2013 issued by the Election Commission of India. Thereupon, an enquiry was duly held by RO, SDO Sawombung who after making necessary enquiry by examining the documentary evidences submitted and the witnesses produced by the contesting parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent, applicant herein, Sri Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh was adopted by Shri Thokchom Navakumar Singh (now deceased) during his lifetime by performing necessary ceremony as required under Manipuri customary practices as prevalent in the state and no wrong information was furnished by him. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel further submits that the RO also gave the finding that, thereafter, Shri Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh respondent, the applicant herein, got enrolled in Khundrakpam Assembly Constituency as a voter using his new adoptive name in the year 2002 and since then he discontinued using his old name in public life. However, for the purpose of continuing his academic studies and for undertaking MA (History) course in Manipur University, he had used his old/original name, as the old name was recorded in all his earlier educational certificates. As a result, the name “Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh” did not appear in the result of MA (History) and instead, the old name, “Shri Oinam Lokeshwar Singh” with Roll no. 214024 appeared at Sl. No. 20 of the aforementioned result sheet. The Returning Officer made his finding that the applicant respondent, Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh had not furnished any wrong information to the authority concerned as the name, “Shri Oinam Lokeshwar Singh” and “Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh” belong to the same and one person. It was stated in the report of the RO that the confusion seems to have arisen from the fact that his old/original name became obsolete in his public life as he came to be known popularly in his new name after adoption by his adoptive father. Accordingly, the RO came to the conclusion that Shri Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh did not furnish wrong information as regards his educational qualification and accordingly, it did not call for any legal proceeding to be initiated against him under Section 125-A of R.P. Act, 1951 and Section 177 of IPC. The RO submitted report to the Election Commission along with all the relevant documentary evidences in support of his conclusion. The Election Commissioner after considering the report submitted by the RO, accepted the same and accordingly, informed the complainant, Shri Namoijam Singhajit Singh on 20.02.2015 that the allegations that Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh, the respondent, applicant herein, had furnished wrong information in respect of his educational qualification, does not hold good and hence, no legal proceedings may be initiated to prosecute Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh, as per the provisions of section 125A of the R.P. Act, 1951 and section 177 of IPC (read with section 200 under the RP Act 1951. The complainant, Shri Namoijam Singhajit Singh was accordingly, informed that if he was not satisfied with the report of the RO, it would be open to him to move the appropriate Court of law. 8. Thereafter, the aforesaid Namoijam Singhajit Singh filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal which was registered as Cril (C) Case No. 35 of 2015 alleging that the applicant respondent had furnished wrong information about his educational qualification at the time of filing his nomination which according to the complainant would attract provisions of Section 177 IPC read with Section 125A of the R.P. Act, 1951. The learned CJM took cognizance of the said complaint vide order dated 30.03.2015. The aforesaid order taking cognizance by the learned CJM was challenged successfully by the present applicant before the Court of Sessions Judge, Imphal East under Cril. Revision Case No. 4 of 2015. 9. The Learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East after hearing the parties and considering the materials placed on record as well as the report of the RO who had given the finding that the respondent applicant did not file any false information, allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, vide judgment order dated 20.07.15 passed in Cril. Revision Case No. 4 of 2015, thereby, quashing the said complaint filed before the learned CJM, Imphal. The aforesaid Namoijam Singhajit Singh, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, filed a petition, being, Cril. Petition No. 6 of 2016 before this Court which, however, was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2016 holding that no case has been made out for taking cognizance of any offence against the respondent. 10. Mr. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel submits that the aforesaid series of proceedings would clearly indicate that the complaint against the applicant respondent for giving false affidavit regarding his educational qualification and about concealing his real identity had been duly considered by the RO as per the direction of the Election Commission as mentioned above and also accepted by the Election Commission. Further, the complaint filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East making similar complaint was also unsuccessful which had been brought to an end by this Court as mentioned above. 11. Mr. Further, the complaint filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East making similar complaint was also unsuccessful which had been brought to an end by this Court as mentioned above. 11. Mr. Ibotombi submits that the finding of the RO given on 22nd Oct, 2013 is in the nature of judicial finding in as much as it has been mentioned under sub-section 3 and 4 of Section 146 of the RP Act, 1951 that the proceeding taken up by the Election Commission under Section 146 of the aforesaid Act amounts to judicial proceeding and the Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court. In other words, the findings arrived at by the RO amount to the judicial pronouncement which had not been interfered or set aside by any other higher statutory forum and as such, judicial findings of the RO has attained finality. The criminal proceedings initiated against the respondent by the said Namoijam Singhajit Singh before the learned CJM also culminated in closure by the Criminal Court. Thus, as on today, the fact remains that it is correct that the applicant respondent had obtained his MA in History from MU in 2003 and his real name is Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh, S/o Thokchom Navakumar Singh after his adoption by Thokchom Navakumar Singh. These facts having been given judicial recognition and attained finality as mentioned above, the allegations raised by the election petitioner in the present election petition that the respondent (applicant herein) has given wrong information about his educational qualification and also concealed his real identity are without any subsistence. As the said questions had been judicially decided and attained finality, these issues cannot be reopened at the instance of the present election petitioner again. 12. Heard also Mr. A. Bimol, learned senior counsel who supplemented the submissions made by Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant. He submits that the election petition, in fact, does not contain any cause of action any more though the petitioner has pleaded certain facts which apparently constitute the cause of action. According to Mr. A Bimol, learned senior counsel these are not really cause of actions as these do not survive any more. He submits that the election petition, in fact, does not contain any cause of action any more though the petitioner has pleaded certain facts which apparently constitute the cause of action. According to Mr. A Bimol, learned senior counsel these are not really cause of actions as these do not survive any more. He submits that what cause of action means has been discussed in Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India & anr., (2006) 6 SCC 207 , wherein “cause of action” has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 as follows : “9. By "cause of action" it is meant every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, a bundle of facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. (See Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai and Ors., 1994 (6) SCC 322 ). 10. In a generic and wide sense (as in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908) "cause of action" means every fact, which it is necessary to establish to support a right to obtain a judgment. (See Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, 1998 (6) SCC 514 ). 11. It is settled law that "cause of action" consists of bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to claim relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. (See South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1996 (3) SCC 443 ). 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. 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". (See Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association v. Union of India and Ors., 2001 (2) SCC 294 ). 13. The expression "cause of action" has sometimes been employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances which constitute either the infringement or the basis of a right and no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole bundle of material facts, which a plaintiff must prove in order to succeed. These are all those essential facts without the proof of which the plaintiff must fail in his suit. (See Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh, 1977 (1) SCC 791 ). 14. The expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases of suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. (See Black's Law Dictionary). In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In "Words and Phrases" (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action" in common legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf. In "Words and Phrases" (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action" in common legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf. (See Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2000 (7) SCC 640 ).” He submits that, it has also been similarly held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I. Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and another, (2004) 9 SCC 512 that a cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit. For the aforesaid purpose, material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence. 13. Mr. A. Bimol, learned senior counsel, referring to Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 submits that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. Thus, these material facts are required to be stated in the petition under section 83(A)(1) which would constitute the cause of action in election petition, if the election petition has to succeed. He submits that as to the meaning of “material facts”, the same has been defined in Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar vs. Ramaratan Bapu & ors., (2004) 7 SCC 181 in which it has been held that material facts are those facts upon which a plaintiff relies for his claim or the defendant depends for his defence. It was further held that what particulars could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be, as held in Para 6 as follows : “6. Now, it is no doubt true that all material facts have to be set out in an election petition. If material facts are not stated in a plaint or a petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone as the case would be covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code. The question, however, is as to whether the petitioner had set out material facts in the election petition. If material facts are not stated in a plaint or a petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone as the case would be covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code. The question, however, is as to whether the petitioner had set out material facts in the election petition. The expression "material facts" has neither been defined in the Act nor in the Code. It may be stated that the material facts are those facts upon which a party relies for his claim or defence. In other words, material facts are facts upon which the plaintiff’s cause of action or defendant's defence depends. What particulars could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. It is, however, absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish existence of cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleading of the party.” Similarly, it has been explained in Ram Sukh Vs. Dinesh Aggarwal, (2009) 10 SCC 541 in Para Nos. 13-15, what amounts to material facts, which are reproduced hereinbelow : “13. The phrase "material facts" has neither been defined in the Act nor in the Code and, therefore, it has been understood by the courts in general terms to mean the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a complete cause of action. In other words, "material facts" are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or defendant's defence depends. (See: Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar Vs. Ramaratan Bapu, (2004) 7 SCC 181 ). Broadly speaking, all primary or basic facts which are necessary either to prove the cause of action by the plaintiff or defence by the defendant are "material facts". Material facts are facts which, if established, would give the petitioner the relief asked for. But again, what could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. 14. Material facts are facts which, if established, would give the petitioner the relief asked for. But again, what could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. 14. The requirement in an election petition as to the statement of material facts and the consequences of lack of such disclosure with reference to Sections 81, 83 and 86 of the Act came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Samant N. Balkrishna & Anr. Vs. George Fernandez, (1969) 3 SCC 238 . Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, M. Hidayatullah, C.J., inter-alia, laid down that:- (i) Section 83 of the Act is mandatory and requires first a concise statement of material facts and then the fullest possible particulars; (ii) omission of even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and statement of claim becomes bad; (iii) the function of particulars is to present in full a picture of the cause of action and to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet; (iv) material facts and particulars are distinct matters-material facts will mention statements of fact and particulars will set out the names of persons with date, time and place; and (v) in stating the material facts it will not do merely to quote the words of the Section because then the efficacy of the material facts will be lost. 15. At this juncture, in order to appreciate the real object and purport of the phrase "material facts", particularly with reference to election law, it would be appropriate to notice distinction between the phrases "material facts" as appearing in clause (a) and "particulars" as appearing in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 83. As stated above, "material facts" are primary or basic facts which have to be pleaded by the petitioner to prove his cause of action and by the defendant to prove his defence. "Particulars", on the other hand, are details in support of the material facts, pleaded by the parties. They amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving distinctive touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more informative. "Particulars", on the other hand, are details in support of the material facts, pleaded by the parties. They amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving distinctive touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more informative. Unlike "material facts" which provide the basic foundation on which the entire edifice of the election petition is built, "particulars" are to be stated to ensure that opposite party is not taken by surprise.” Thus, it is essential that the petitioner clearly states the material facts as required under section 83(1)(A) in his election petition. 14. Mr. A. Bimol, learned senior counsel submits that it is case of the petitioner in the election petition as mentioned as above that there is no such certificate in the name of “Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh” of having passed M.A (Master of Arts) in History examination in 2003 from the Manipur University. This is the material fact which the petitioner has pleaded in his election petition. However the respondent has clarified in the written statement that the respondent had used his earlier surname “Oinam” for appearing in the said examination and this same issue, which was earlier agitated by one person namely, Namoijam Singhajit Singh, had been considered by the Election Commission as well as by the Courts of law and finally decided. However, the petitioner is relying on the same information furnished by the said Namoijam Singhajit to plead that the applicant respondent has not passed M.A. examination in 2003 and that the applicant respondent has given wrong education certificate. In other words, the petitioner is relying on the same source of the information and same set of documents/evidences to assert his claim in this election petition that the applicant respondent has given wrong information about his educational qualification and identity which has been already settled. 15. By referring to Section 146 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, more particularly, sub sections (3) and (4) which provide that Election Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and procedure shall be deemed to be judicial proceeding, Mr. A. Bimol also reiterates that issue relating to educational qualification and such certificate of having passed M.A in 2003 has attained finality having been decided by competent Court of law. A. Bimol also reiterates that issue relating to educational qualification and such certificate of having passed M.A in 2003 has attained finality having been decided by competent Court of law. He submits that the decision of the Election Commission as well as decision of this Court has not been challenged before any higher forum and these are judicial decisions which have attained finality and cannot now be reopened. It has been submitted by Mr. A. Bimol, learned senior counsel that apart from the aforesaid pleading made in the election petition, there is no additional pleading made and there is no allegation in the petition that adoption of the respondent by Thokchom Nabakumar was either invalid or the change of the name of the respondent from “Oinam Lokheshore Singh” to “Thokchom Lokeshore Singh” is not permissible or illegal and any such plea also cannot be raised at this stage in this Election petition. 16. Accordingly, Mr. Bimol, learned senior counsel has submitted that when no such specific averments or pleadings has been made in the election petition challenging the legality of the findings of the Election Commission and the Courts of law, the scope of election petition cannot be enlarged. The election petition is governed by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and requirements of the statute as provided under the State have to be unscrupulously adhered to and Court cannot go beyond the pleadings of the parties. Neither the parties can be allowed to present their case beyond their respective pleadings. If that is so, and if the petitioner relies on material facts which have been already decided by a competent Court, the question of deciding the issues in the present election petition does not arise. He submits that it can be said now that no cause of action has been shown to exist in the pleadings in the election petition and no triable issue has been raised by the petitioner. If the petitioner is not able to show any other cause of action or any triable issue in election petition other than the allegation of falsification of educational qualification and identity, the election petition deserves to be summarily rejected as empowered under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. 17. In this regard, Mr. If the petitioner is not able to show any other cause of action or any triable issue in election petition other than the allegation of falsification of educational qualification and identity, the election petition deserves to be summarily rejected as empowered under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. 17. In this regard, Mr. A. Bimol, learned senior counsel has also relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi; 1986 (Supp) SCC 315 and 1987 Supp. SCC 663 and in Ram Sukh Vs. Dinesh Aggarwal, (2009) 10 SCC 541 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the Court can dismiss the election petition at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 and the Court does not have to wait for the stage of framing of issue or recording of evidence. It has been submitted that if no new cause of action have been shown in the petition, the Court, at this preliminary stage, can dismiss the election petition. Mr. Bimol further has submitted that if, at this stage, petitioner wishes to bring new facts, the same cannot be allowed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs. Rajiv Gandhi, 1987 (Supp) SCC 93 and Jeet Mohinder Singh vs. Harminder Singh Jassi, (1999) 9 SCC 386 . 18. In sum, the submission of Mr. A. Bimol, learned senior counsel for the applicant (respondent in the election petition) is that since the election petitioner has not raised any new triable issue, it cannot be said that the election petition has disclosed any cause of action, as the issues raised in the election petition had been already adjudicated upon and attained finality are not required to be re-examined by this Court and cannot form cause of action. Accordingly, since the petitioner has not raised or pleaded any other new material facts, it can be said that the petition suffers from the lack of cause of action. In view of matter, this Court may not wait to proceed for framing of issues and this Court can dismiss the election at this stage itself by invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 19. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the election petitioner, in response, has vehemently opposed the submissions made behalf of the applicant/respondent in the election petition. 19. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the election petitioner, in response, has vehemently opposed the submissions made behalf of the applicant/respondent in the election petition. It has been submitted that the present application seeking for dismissal of the election petition is not maintainable at this stage. He submits that only in certain circumstances, election petition can be thrown out at the threshold. For example, if the election petition has been filed belatedly or when there are fatal defects in the election petition, as in the case where necessary parties are not impleaded as respondents under section 82 of the RP Act or where the necessary deposit has not been made at the time of filing of the election petition, etc. In the present case, no such issue has been raised by the applicant which would warrant dismissal of the election petition under section 86 of the RP Act at this stage under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 20. It has been submitted by Mr. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioner that if an application is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the claim, only the claim/plea of the election petition has to be looked into. In other words, if an application is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the petitioner does not disclose cause of action as contended by the applicant, this Court has to examine the pleadings in the election petition only and not the written statement filed by the respondent. He submits that if one reads the pleadings in the election petition it can be seen that the petitioner has raised many triable issues and as such the present application may not be allowed. 21. Mr. Mahendra further submits that Section 86 of RP Act which has been invoked by the applicant/respondent in election petition, will be attracted only when the applicant makes out a case of violation of the provisions of sections 81 or 82 or 117 of the RP Act. Section 86 of the RP Act cannot be invoked for the purpose of dismissal of the election petition at the threshold on the ground that no cause of action has been disclosed by referring to the written statement, as the applicant is seeking. Section 86 of the RP Act cannot be invoked for the purpose of dismissal of the election petition at the threshold on the ground that no cause of action has been disclosed by referring to the written statement, as the applicant is seeking. He submits that whether an election petition discloses or does not disclose cause of action, is a question of fact which is to be determined by referring to the plea in the election petition only and not by referring to the written statement of the respondent as sought by the applicant. In support of his contention, Mr. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy, (2012) 7 SCC 788 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “5. It is equally well settled that while examining whether a plaint or an election petition discloses a cause of action, the Court has a full and comprehensive view of the pleading. The averments made in the plaint or petition cannot be read out of context or in isolation. They must be taken in totality for a true and proper understanding of the case setup by the plaintiff. 6. This Court has in Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia given a timely reminder of the principle in the following words: (SCC pp. 520-21, para-33) “33. We are afraid, this ingenious method of construction after compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversion of the cardinal canon of interpretation, according to which, a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context, in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words, or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered, primarily, from the tenor and terms of his pleading taken as a whole.” 7. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai4 wherein this Court reiterated that for purposes of determining whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, the Court must take into consideration the plaint as a whole. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai4 wherein this Court reiterated that for purposes of determining whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, the Court must take into consideration the plaint as a whole. It is only if even after the plaint is read as a whole, that no cause of action is found discernible that the Court can exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 8. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Liverpool & London S.P. and I Assn. Ltd. V.M.V. Sea Success I5 where this Court held that the disclosure of a cause of action in the plaint is a question of fact and the answer to that question must be found only from the reading of the plaint it self. The court trying a suit or an election petition, as the position is in the present case, shall while examining whether the plaint or the petition discloses a cause of action, to assume that the averments made in the plaint taken as factually correct, the court finds no cause of action emerging from the averments that it may be justified in rejecting the plaint. The following paragraph from the decision is apposite in this regard: (SCC p.562, para-139) “139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirely must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in its entirety, a decree would be passed.” 22. Mr. Mahendra, learned counsel for the election petitioner submits that in the election petition, the petitioner has raised very important issues which relates to substantial defects in the affidavit of the respondent filed at the time of filing of nomination which would render the candidature of the respondent null and void. He submits that the affidavit filed by the respondent suffers from substantial defects relating to (i) highest educational qualification and (ii) concealment of the real identity of the candidate, by not disclosing the correct surname and parentage. 23. He submits that the affidavit filed by the respondent suffers from substantial defects relating to (i) highest educational qualification and (ii) concealment of the real identity of the candidate, by not disclosing the correct surname and parentage. 23. He submits that though the respondent had disclosed his name as “Thokchom Lokeshswar Singh s/o late Thokchom Navakumar Singh” in the affidavit, in fact, and in reality, he is “Oinam Lokeshwar Singh s/o Oinam Khoidumba”, which stands supported by the electoral roll published in the year 1999 of 38-Hiyanglam Assembly Constituency. He submits that as the affidavit filed by the returned candidate suffers from substantial defects and important triable issues have been raised in the election petition, which need to be dealt with in accordance with law by framing issues in this regard and by going through the legal process in this election petition, the petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 24. Mr. Mahendra, learned counsel for the election petitioner also submits that the issue relating to the highest educational qualification and his real identity as to correctness of his parentage which has been claimed to have been already settled in earlier legal proceedings before the Election Commission as well as before this Court, cannot be looked into at this stage, in as much as these orders passed in those proceedings can be referred to later, to decide the issue as to whether the petitioner concealed his identity or filed false affidavit as alleged by the election petitioner only in terms of section 42 of the Indian Evidence Act and not at this stage. Mr. Mahendra, learned counsel referring to the illustration to section 42 of the Indian Evidence Act submits that these judicial orders cannot be decisive of the issue as to whether the returned candidate filed false affidavit as regards his highest educational qualification and the true identity of the candidate and such issues are to be decided only after framing of issues and not at this stage. 25. Mr. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Virendra Nath Gautam Vs. Satpal Singh and Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 617 in support of his claim. He submits that what is required to be pleaded in an election petition are the material facts (facta probanda) and not the material particulars (facta probantia). Satpal Singh and Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 617 in support of his claim. He submits that what is required to be pleaded in an election petition are the material facts (facta probanda) and not the material particulars (facta probantia). In the present election petition, the petitioner has pleaded the materials facts to plead that the returned candidate has filed false affidavit. In support of his contention that the previous judgments relied on by the applicant for dismissal of this election petition are not conclusive and decisive but merely referable materials, he has relied on Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs. Laxmi Prasad, AIR 2009 SC 2463 in which it was held that judgment of criminal Court is not admissible in civil suit. 26. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record, it is evident that the Respondent in the election petition, the applicant herein, is seeking dismissal of the election petition on the ground that no cause of action has been shown to exist in the plaint on the basis of the averments made in the written statement of the Respondent and since no cause of action survives or triable issue remains according to the applicant, the election petition is liable to be dismissed at this stage. 27. The main ground for seeking the relief for declaration of the election of the respondent as returned candidate as void is that the RO of 1-Khundrakpam Assembly Constituency in the 11th General Election to Manipur Legislative Assembly, 2017 without paying any heed to the objection raised by the election petitioner illegally accepted the improper nomination filed by the respondent. The objection raised by the election petitioner to the RO about the nomination of respondent was on the ground that the Respondent had filed an affidavit on 13.02.2017 having substantial defects as the respondent either falsely deposed at para no. 10 of the said affidavit dated 13.02.2017 that his highest educational qualification is “Master of Arts in History, Manipur University, 2003” and there is no such a person by the name ‘Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh’ who obtained the degree of ‘Master of Arts in History in Manipur University or has concealed the real identity of the respondent by furnishing false information as to his surname of being ‘Thokchom’ and of being the ‘Son of Late Thokchom Navakumar Singh’ as stated in para 5 of the election petition. The aforesaid para 5 of the election petition is reproduced for better appreciation : “5. That the petitioner states that at the time of Scrutiny on the date fixed, the petitioner objected to the nomination of the Respondent as provided under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the ground that the Respondent has filed an Affidavit dated 13.02.2017 (FORM 26) having substantial defects in as much as the Respondent either falsely deposed at Para No. 10 of the said affidavit dated 13.02.2017 that his highest educational qualification is “Master of Arts in History, Manipur University, 2003” since there is no such a person by the name ‘Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh’ who obtained the degree of ‘Master of Arts in History, Manipur University, 2003’ or has concealed the real identity of the respondent by furnishing false information as to his surname of being ‘Thokchom’ and parentage of being the ‘Son of Late Navakumar Singh’. In para no. 6 of the election petition, the election petitioner had alleged that the RO without paying any heed to the objections illegally accepted the nomination of the respondent. In Paras no. 7 to 25, the election petitioner has stated as to how the affidavit filed by the respondent is a false declaration by giving false information about his educational qualification and identity, not only in the last election, but also in earlier elections. Thus, from the perusal of the election petition, it is evident that apart from the aforesaid allegation of the petitioner that the respondent has given wrong information about his educational qualification that he had passed the qualification of “Master of Arts in History, Manipur University, 2003” and that he had used the false identity as “Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh, S/o Thokchom Navakumar Singh, a resident of Sagolmang Mamang Leikai”, there is no other allegation in the election petition challenging the election of the respondent. 28. It is because of the aforesaid allegations that the respondent, the applicant herein, after filing of the written statement, contended that the aforesaid issues relating to educational qualification and the real identity of the Respondent, having been already considered on an earlier occasion during the 10th Manipur Legislative Assembly election held in the year 2012, by the Election Commission of India as well as by the Courts of law, and as these findings have attained finality, cannot be raised again in this petition. It has been submitted that even if these are raised in this election petition, these cannot be considered now as the aforesaid decisions cannot be reopened. If that is so, there is no other triable issues left to be decided in this election petition and it can be said that in effect, no cause of action exists any more, to proceed with the election petition and accordingly, the election is liable to be dismissed by invoking provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 29. On the other hand, it is the case of the election petitioner that an election petition cannot be dismissed at this stage by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by taking into consideration the written statement and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action. It has been submitted by Mr. Mahendra that so long as the election petition discloses cause of action, the election petition cannot be ignored merely on the basis of written statement filed by the respondent. According to the learned counsel for the election petitioner, it is now well settled that the Court in order to ascertain whether there exists cause of action has to merely look into plaint and not to the written statement. He submits that he has raised serious and triable issues in the election petition as regards educational qualification and the real identity of the respondent and accordingly, submits that it cannot be said that the election petition does not disclose cause of action which would warrant dismissal of the petition at this stage. 30. The law relating to “cause of action” is now fairly well settled. As to what amounts to and constitutes “cause of action” has been elaborately submitted by the learned senior counsel for the applicant and as such this Court does not wish to reiterate the law. Suffice to say that the set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim constitutes the cause of action. In that view of the matter, if the election petitioner has alleged that the respondent had given wrong information about his educational qualification as well as his real identity by giving material facts and details, it can be said that the election petition discloses “cause of action”. In that view of the matter, if the election petitioner has alleged that the respondent had given wrong information about his educational qualification as well as his real identity by giving material facts and details, it can be said that the election petition discloses “cause of action”. If that is so, the election petition cannot be dismissed at this stage by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11, CPC on the ground that the election petition does not disclose any longer, any “cause of action” on the basis of pleadings in the written statement filed by the respondent. The applicant, the respondent in the election petitioner, has contended that, even if assuming that, the election petition discloses “cause of action”, on further consideration of the pleadings on record, based on the written statement, it would be clearly evident that such cause of action no more exists, for the very basis or the foundation of the cause of action claimed by the election petitioner does not exist in law now, after these issues raised by the election petitioner had been already been settled on an earlier occasion. Thus, the contention of the applicant is that on consideration of the pleadings in the written statement, one will find that the cause of action claimed by the election petitioner does not survive any more for consideration by this Court and it will now be a futile exercise to continue the election petition and hence the election petition ought to be dismissed at this stage as otherwise it would amount to a vexatious petition. 31. The submission advanced by the learned senior counsel for the applicant, the respondent in the election petition, seems very attractive at the first blush, but unfortunately it does not find statutory support. It is now well settled that in order to ascertain whether a petition discloses “cause of action” or not, the Court has to look at the plaint/petition only and cannot look into the written statement as the averments and contents in the written statement are wholly irrelevant to determine whether the petitioner has been able to show any cause of action or not. In support of this legal position, one may refer to the following decisions:- (i) Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 , wherein it was held that,- “24. In support of this legal position, one may refer to the following decisions:- (i) Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 , wherein it was held that,- “24. It is the duty of the court to examine the petition irrespective of any written statement or denial and reject the petition if it does not disclose a cause of action. To enable a court to reject a plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should look at the plaint and nothing else. Courts have always frowned upon vague pleadings which leave a wide scope to adduce any evidence. No amount of evidence can cure basic defect in the pleadings.” (emphasis added) (ii) Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100 , wherein it was held that,- “12. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the court exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue influence or of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. In the present case, the averments made in the plaint, as has been noticed by us, do disclose the cause of action and, therefore, the High Court has rightly said that the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code cannot be exercised for rejection of the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants.” (emphasis added) (iii) P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy, (2015) 8 SCC 331 , at page 333, wherein it was also held that,- “5. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that have to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial.” (emphasis added) (iv) R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu, (2016) 14 SCC 275 , wherein it was held that,- “4. We are afraid that the stand taken by the High Court in the impugned order cannot be appreciated. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage, as held by this Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137 : (SCC p. 146, para 10) “10. We are afraid that the stand taken by the High Court in the impugned order cannot be appreciated. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage, as held by this Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137 : (SCC p. 146, para 10) “10. … The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit - before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial.” The only restriction is that the consideration of the application for rejection should not be on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or on the basis of the allegations in the application for rejection of the plaint. The court has to consider only the plaint as a whole, and in case, the entire plaint comes under the situations covered by Order 7 Rules 11(a) to (f) CPC, the same has to be rejected. (emphasis added) (v) Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal, (2017) 5 SCC 345 , wherein the aforesaid principle was reiterated as follows : “11. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100 this Court has dealt with a similar issue. To the extent relevant, para 12 reads as follows: (SCC p. 115) “12. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the court exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue influence or of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint.” (emphasis added) (vii) Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murtrthy v. Syed Jalaa, (2017) 13 SCC 174 , wherein the aforesaid law has been followed, as,- “7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can bee entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 111 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” (emphasis added) 32. In view of the above settled law, the election petition cannot be dismissed at this stage by invoking Order 7 Rule 11, CPC by referring to the pleadings in the written statement filed by the respondent. At this stage this Court has to merely examine the pleadings in the election petition and not to the written statement and this Court finds that sufficient material facts have pleaded in the election petition to constitute cause of action. It is an entirely different matter that in the light of the written statement filed by the respondent, the respondent may ultimately, succeed, but that issue cannot be considered at this stage, for the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for dismissal on the ground that the petition does not disclose cause of action. 33. For the reasons discussed above, as it cannot be said at this stage that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action, this Court does not find merit in the application and accordingly, the present application is dismissed. 34. 33. For the reasons discussed above, as it cannot be said at this stage that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action, this Court does not find merit in the application and accordingly, the present application is dismissed. 34. However, before parting, this Court would like to make the observation that at if at an appropriate stage, it can be established that no triable issue remains to be adjudicated by this Court, as contended by the applicant, respondent in the election petition, based on the pleadings and materials disclosed with supporting evidences in the written statement, the respondent in the election petition may revive this claim for dismissal/closure of the election petition at such appropriate stage in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. It may be noted that in some cases, there may be situations, where because of certain position obtaining or subsequent developments taking place during the pendency of a suit, the cause of action may not survive anymore. In such situation, there may by nothing left to be decided by the Court, or the judicial exercise may be reduced to purely an academic exercise. In such an eventuality, the suit may be liable to be closed as infructuous or dismissed. Accordingly, it is clarified that in spite of dismissal of this application, the respondent in the election petition may again move this Court, at the appropriate stage, to pursue his claim for dismissal/closure of the election petition, in accordance with law. After all, the jurisdiction of the Court can be invoked to decide and determine live issues only and not non-existent issues and this Court is not expected to undertake a futile judicial exercise.