ORDER : V. Srinivas, J. I.A.No.3 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner/1st respondent to reject/dismiss the Election Petition No.15 of 2019 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure for non-compliance of the mandatory procedure under Sections 81, 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “R.P. Act”) read with Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. 2. I.A.No.3 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/Election Petitioner prays to permit him to carry out curable defects occurred in the Election Petition No.15 of 2019 and to file neatly typed copy of the same. 3. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 and Sri Narasimhulu, learned counsel and Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/Election Petitioner in I.A.No.3 of 2024. 4. The brief averments mentioned in the affidavit filed along with the petition in I.A.No.3 of 2023 as follows : (i). The election petition must be presented by the 1st respondent/Election Petitioner to the authorized officer of the High Court as per Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, the said authorized officer of the High Court has to identify the candidate and make an endorsement on the record as per the mandatory procedure. (ii). The election petition is filed on the grounds of corrupt practice. As per the proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 83, an affidavit shall be filed in the prescribed form i.e, Form-25 in support of the allegations of such corrupt practices by giving particulars thereof and it shall be served on the returned candidate. Non-compliance of the same, under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, vitiates the entire case. (iii). Basis for alleging such corrupt practice by the Election Petitioner is Annexure-A.5. The said document is obtained by the Elections Petitioner by illegal means because, he has never authorized HERO FINCORP to obtain the CIBIL information of the petitioner/1st respondent nor share such information, as such, sharing such private information to the Election Petitioner is nothing but illegal. To have a wrongful gain and with a malafide intention, the Election Petitioner also conveniently did not file an affidavit in support of the allegation of corrupt practices. To have a wrongful gain and with a malafide intention, the Election Petitioner also conveniently did not file an affidavit in support of the allegation of corrupt practices. Non-disclosure of such material facts and material particulars thereof in the Election Petition categorically establishes that the Election Petition is filed based on an illusory cause of action with frivolous litigation abusing the process of the Court. Thereby, the same is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the R.P. Act read with Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”). 5. Denying the application in I.A.No.3 of 2023, the Election petitioner filed counter and pleaded in brief as follows : (i). The election petition is filed within 45 days from the date of declaration of election in compliance with the provisions of Section 81(1) of R.P. Act. The election petition is filed under Section 100(1)(d) of the R.P. Act to declare the election of the returned candidate i.e., petitioner herein to be void for non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act and to pray this relief does not need to file Form-25 affidavit. The allegations made against the petitioner/respondent No.1 is covered by Section 125A of R.P. Act, which is Penalty for filing false affidavit, but not under Section 123 of R.P. Act. (ii). The method of procuring Anexure-A5 is not important, but validity and its content and credibility of their genuineness is important, which is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its pronouncements. Thereby, it is evident that annexure A-5 is genuine and crucial document to prove the case beyond all reasons doubt. (iii). The grounds raised by the appellant in the present application are not covered by any one rule mentioned Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., thereby, prays to dismiss the application in limine. 6. On the above pleadings in I.A.No.3 of 2023, the point that arises for determination is “Whether the Election Petition is suffers from incurable defects and based on vague allegations of corrupt practice without any substantial material, if so, the same is liable to be rejected?” 7. 6. On the above pleadings in I.A.No.3 of 2023, the point that arises for determination is “Whether the Election Petition is suffers from incurable defects and based on vague allegations of corrupt practice without any substantial material, if so, the same is liable to be rejected?” 7. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent No.1 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 submits that the very presentation of Election Petition is not valid under Section 80 and 81 of the R.P. Act; that the defects now sought to be cured by seeking amendment of the Election Petition cannot be permitted, which is nothing but beyond limitation; that the election petition is not presented as prescribed under Section 80 of the R.P.Act; the so called corrupt practice as per CIBIL information per se inadmissible and cannot be a basis to allege the corrupt practice; that all the required true copies under Section 81(3) of the R.P.Act are not filed and thereby, prays to consider the present application. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel relied upon the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577 , Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malanger, AIR 2000 SC 16 as well G.V. Sreerama Reddy v. Returning Officer, (2009) 8 SCC 736 . 8. Per contra, Sri Narasimhulu, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Election Petitioner vehemently submits that in the democratic polity a free and fair election being an essential one and the contesting candidates has a duty of truthful discloser of material particulars; that the nondisclosure of the material information or concealing information by a contesting candidate is to be a factor to consider that it had materially affected the election; that the case of the Election Petitioner is squarely comes under Section 100 of R.P. Act; that now the Election Petitioner seeking to correct the typographical errors only and it does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner herein; that the Election Petitioner had obtained the Credit Information from the Bureau India Private Limited of CIBIL and also the CIBIL Score from the internet, which all shows the suppression of material facts by the petitioner herein and thereby, there are no valid grounds urged to reject the Election Petition filed against the petitioner herein. In support of the above contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon certain pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591 , Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy, AIR 2012 SC 2638 , Thangjam Arun Kumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, AIR 2023 SC 4531 and Teesta Atul Setalvad v. The State of Gujart, (2018) 2 SCC 372 . 9. In view of the above rival contentions, it is clear that the case of the petitioner in I.A.No.3 of 2023 to prove his claim rests on three grounds as urged by him. Firstly, the election petition must be presented by the 1st respondent/Election Petitioner before the authorized officer of the High Court as per Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act. 10. Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act reads as follows : “81. Presentation of petitions.--(1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.” 11. It is not in dispute that the election result was declared on 23.05.2019 and the present election petition was filed on 05.07.2019, thereby, it is within the limitation as prescribed under the Act. Thereby, the non-compliance of Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act does not arise. 12. Secondly, when the election petition is preferred on the grounds of corrupt practice, as per the proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 83, an affidavit shall be filed in the prescribed form i.e, Form-25 in support of the allegations of such corrupt practices by giving particulars thereof and it shall be served on the returned candidate. Non-compliance of the same vitiates the entire case under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act. 13. Non-compliance of the same vitiates the entire case under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act. 13. In this regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/Election Petitioner is that the election petitioner is not liable to be dismissed for want of Form-25 affidavit as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ponnala Lakshmaiah case (referred to supra) as well as Thangjam Arunkumar case (referred to supra), thereby, this is not a valid ground to discard the case of the Election Petitioner. 14. Now, it is relevant to refer observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ponnala Lakshmaiah case (referred to supra), which are as follows : “24. More importantly the Court held that if the High Court had found the affidavit to be defective for any reason it should have allowed an opportunity to the election petitioner to remove the same by filing a proper affidavit. This Court observed: “15. Having formed an opinion that there was any defect in the affidavit, the election petitioner should have been allowed an opportunity of removing the defect by filing a proper affidavit. Else the effect of such failure should have been left to be determined and adjudicated upon at the trial, as held in G.Mallikarjunappa and Anr.'s case.” 25.To the same effect is the decision of a three-Judge bench of this Court in G. Mallikarjunappa and Anr. v. Shamanur Shiv Ashankappa and Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 428 . The High Court had in that case also dismissed the election petitions taking the view that there had been non-compliance with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 inasmuch as the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practices with the election petitions did not comply with the requirements of the format as prescribed in Form 25. Allowing the appeal this Court observed: “An election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86(1) of the Act if the election petition does not comply with either the provisions of “Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 of the RP Act”. The requirement of filing an affidavit along with an election petition, in the prescribed form, in support of allegations of corrupt practice is contained in Section 83(1) of the Act. Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, however, does not attract the consequences envisaged by Section 86(1) of the Act. The requirement of filing an affidavit along with an election petition, in the prescribed form, in support of allegations of corrupt practice is contained in Section 83(1) of the Act. Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, however, does not attract the consequences envisaged by Section 86(1) of the Act. Therefore, an election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 of the Act, for alleged non-compliance with provisions of Section 83(1) or (2) of the Act or of its proviso. The defect in the verification and the affidavit is a curable defect. What other consequences, if any, may follow from an allegedly “defective” affidavit, is required to be judged at the trial of an election petition but Section 86(1) of the Act in terms cannot be attracted to such a case.” 31. Suffice it to say, that in the absence of any provision making breach of the proviso to Section 83(1), a valid ground of dismissal of an election petition at the threshold, we see no reason why the requirement of filing an affidavit in a given format should be exalted by a judicial interpretation to the status of a statutory mandate. A petition that raises triable issues need not, therefore, be dismissed simply because the affidavit filed by the petitioner is not in a given format no matter the deficiency in the format has not caused any prejudice to the successful candidate and can be cured by the election petitioner by filing a proper affidavit.” (emphasis supplied) 15. It is also relevant to refer a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar, (2013) 4 SCC 776 , wherein categorically observed that : “62. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, it seems quite clear that the affidavit filed by the Prasanna Kumar in compliance with the requirements of the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act was not an integral part of the election petition, and no such case was set up. It also seems quite clear that the affidavit was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. It also seems quite clear that the affidavit was in substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. Therefore, the High Court was quite right in coming to the conclusion that the affidavit not being in the prescribed format of Form 25 and with a defective verification were curable defects and that an opportunity ought to be granted to Prasanna Kumar to cure the defects” (emphasis supplied) 16. In view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is categorical that the affidavit not being in the prescribed format of Form-25 and with a defective verification were curable defects and that an opportunity ought to be granted to election petitioner to cure the said defect. Thereby, the second ground urged by the petitioner/1st respondent cannot be taken as substantial to reject the election petition. 17. Lastly, the most important and crucial ground that was urged by the petitioner/1st respondent to reject the election petition is basis for alleging corrupt practice by the Election Petitioner, which is a sole ground to consider the election petition, is Annexure-A.5 and the said document obtained by the Election Petitioner by illegal means and same cannot be looked into to prove such alleged corrupt practice. 18. On this ground, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/Election Petitioner that Annexure A-5 is a genuine and crucial document to prove the case beyond all reasons doubts and the entire case of the Election Petitioner is revolving around the said document, as such, the ground raised by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 19. It is not in dispute that the document mentioned in Annexure A-5 is not a public document and is not entitled to share the credit information of the individual. Furthermore, it is not an authenticated document to prove the financial transactions of the individual. More so, on perusal of said Annexure A-5, there is categorical disclaimer that “This document contains proprietary information to CRIF High Mark and may not be used or disclosed to others, except with the written permission of CRIF High Mark. Any paper copy of this document will be considered uncontrolled. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this information or any part thereof”. 20. Any paper copy of this document will be considered uncontrolled. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this information or any part thereof”. 20. Now, it is relevant to refer the certain provisions in The Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005, wherein Section 2(l), Section 20(a)(iii)(b)(c) and Section 22 reads as follows : 2(l) “specified user” means any credit institution, credit information company being a member under sub-section (3) of section 15, and includes such other person or institution as may be specified by regulations made, from time to time, by the Reserve Bank for the purpose of obtaining credit information from a credit information company; 20. Privacy principles.—Every credit information company, credit institution and specified user, shall adopt the following privacy principles in relation to collection, processing, collating, recording, preservation, secrecy, sharing and usage of credit information, namely:— (a)(iii) which may be adopted by every credit information company for allowing access to records containing credit information of borrowers and clients and alteration of such records in case of need to do so; (b) the purpose for which the credit information may be used, restriction on such use and disclosure thereof; (c) the extent of obligation to check accuracy of credit information before furnishing of such information to credit information companies or credit institutions or specified users, as the case may be; 22. Unauthorized access to credit information.— (1) No person shall have access to credit information in the possession or control of a credit information company or a credit institution or a specified user unless the access is authorized by this Act or any other law for the time being in force or directed to do so by any court or tribunal and any such access to credit information without such authorization or direction shall be considered as an unauthorized access to credit information. (2) Any person who obtains unauthorized access to credit information as referred to in sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees in respect of each offence and if he continues to have such unauthorized access, with further fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees for every day on which the default continues and such unauthorized credit information shall not be taken into account for any purpose. 21. 21. In view of the above provisions as well discussion made supra, it is very much relevant to say that the election petition is filed on the very same vague, baseless, and unauthorized document to allege such corrupt practices. It is not even stated the source of credit information by the petitioner. Even the Election Petitioner did not file any written permission of CRIF High Mark to get the said document from the public domain and to use it as an authenticated evidence to prove the financial transactions of the petitioner/1st respondent. 22. From the above, it is in vivid terms that the Election Petitioner filed the petition, without any cause of action, basing on the very vague and unreliable document to allege such corrupt practices against the petitioner/1st respondent. 23. Now, it is apposite to refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal case (referred to supra), wherein it was observed by referring its earlier pronouncements as follows : 11. In Bhagwati Prasad Dixit Ghorawala v. Rajiv Gandhi ( AIR 1986 SC 1534 ) this Court again reiterated that in an election pleading have to be precise, specific, and unambiguous and if the election petition does not disclose a cause of action it should be rejected in limine. These authorities have settled the legal position that an election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine at the initial stage if it does not disclose any cause of action. 14…… Allegations of corrupt practice are in the nature of criminal charges; it is necessary that there should be no vagueness in the allegations so that the returned candidate may know the case he has to meet. If the allegations are vague and general and the particulars of corrupt practice are not stated in the pleadings, the trial of the election petition cannot proceed for want of cause of action. 31. The above scanning of the election petition would show that the appellant failed to plead complete details of corrupt practice which could constitute a cause of action as contemplated by Section 100 of the Act and he further failed to give the material facts and other details of the alleged corrupt practices. The allegations relating to corrupt practice, even if assumed to be true as stated in the various paragraphs of the election petition do not constitute any corrupt practice. The allegations relating to corrupt practice, even if assumed to be true as stated in the various paragraphs of the election petition do not constitute any corrupt practice. The petition was drafted in a highly vague and general manner…….” (emphasis supplied) 24. Having regard to the above pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is categorical that the present election petition was drafted based on the highly vague document which do not constitute any corrupt practice. Furthermore, even as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Election Petitioner, the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner/1st respondent regarding suppression of financial information was dismissed in the Court of Law. Viewing from any angle, the election petition, which is filed basing on the very vague and baseless allegations by relying upon sole unauthenticated document, is nothing but lack of cause of action to file the same, as such, it is liable to be rejected in limine at the initial stage. 25. Coming to the application under I.A.No.3 of 2024, which is preferred, pending the application in I.A.No.3 of 2023, by the Election Petitioner to carry out the curable defects occurred in the main Election Petition and consequently to receive the fair and amended copy of Election Petition, are strongly opposed by the petitioner in I.A.No.3 of 2023 by stating that the very presentation of Election Petition is not valid under Section 80 and 81 of the R.P. Act and that the defects now sought to be cured by seeking amendment of the Election Petition cannot be permitted and even if they are permitted, that has to be effective from the date of the order passed by this Court, but that will not help the Election Petitioner as it is beyond 45 days. More so, the petitioner also seeks amendment in amendment application is to amend the contents of the affidavit, which is not permissible in in law. 26. Now, it is relevant to refer the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal case (referred to supra) as follows : 31……. Various paragraphs of the petition presented disjointed averments and it is difficult to make out as to what actually the petitioner intended to plead. 26. Now, it is relevant to refer the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal case (referred to supra) as follows : 31……. Various paragraphs of the petition presented disjointed averments and it is difficult to make out as to what actually the petitioner intended to plead. At the conclusion of hearing of the appeal before us appellant made applications for amending the election petition, to remove the defects pointed out by the High Court and to render the allegations of corrupt practice in accordance with the provisions of Section 83 read with Section 123 of the Act. Having given our anxious consideration to the amendment applications, we are of the opinion that these applications cannot be allowed at this stage. It must be borne in mind that the election petition was presented to the Registrar of the High Court at Lucknow Bench on the last day of the limitation prescribed for filing the election petition. The appellant could not raise any ground of challenge after the expiry of limitation. Order VI Rule 17 no doubt permits amendment of an election petition but the same is subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 81 prescribes a period of 45 days from the date of the election for presenting election petition calling in question the election of a returned candidate. After the expiry of that period no election petition is maintainable and the High Court or this Court has no jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation. An order of amendment permitting a new ground to be raised beyond the time specified in Section 81 would amount to contravention of those provisions and is beyond the ambit of Section 87 of the Act. It necessarily follows that a new ground cannot be raised or inserted in an election petition by way of amendment after the expiry of the period of limitation. The amendments claimed by the appellant are not in the nature of supplying particulars instead those seek to raise new grounds of challenge. Various paragraphs of the election petition which are sought to be amended, do not disclose any cause of action, therefore it is not permissible to allow their amendment after expiry of the period of limitation. Amendment applications are accordingly rejected.” (emphasis supplied) 27. Various paragraphs of the election petition which are sought to be amended, do not disclose any cause of action, therefore it is not permissible to allow their amendment after expiry of the period of limitation. Amendment applications are accordingly rejected.” (emphasis supplied) 27. In view of the above categorical observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear in vivid terms that the amended sought in the affidavit filed along with the election petition, which failed to plead any corrupt practice based on authenticated material, cannot be permitted in the absence of cause of action as discussed supra, as the Election Petitioner utterly failed to raise any valid grounds to render the allegations of corrupt practice as well this Court has no jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation to raise a new ground without any proper material. Thereby, the application in I.A.No.3 of 2024 has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. 28. In the result, the application in I.A.No.3 of 2023 is allowed and the application in I.A.No.3 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, rejected the Election Petition No.15 of 2019 preferred by the 1st respondent/Election Petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending if any in the main Election Petition, shall stand closed.