The plea was moved by Ramesh, who contested as an independent candidate from the same constituency.
He alleged discrepancies in Lekhi’s election expenditure and accused her of corrupt election practices.
Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea, stating that it lacked essential “material facts” necessary to establish a cause of action.
“In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition being bereft of a cause of action, is dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Pending applications are also disposed of,” the judge said.
The court stressed on the significance of providing detailed and well-supported pleadings to ensure transparency and efficiency in the legal process. The Representation of People Act highlights the need for specificity when making allegations, it said.
The court observed that the petitioner did not present specific details about the alleged corrupt practices, individuals involved, amomg other things.
Though Ramesh argued that Lekhi exceeded the permissible election expenditure limit of Rs. 70 lakhs, the basis for his claim remained vague.
The lack of specific information regarding election-related expenses and undervaluation of expenditures weakened the credibility of the accusation.
“Petitioner has not set-out the concise details of persons involved, mode of undervaluing of expenditures and manner of alleged fabrication of the accounts register. The lack of specific details regarding expenses incurred on various election-related activities and the undervaluation of expenditures undermines the credibility of the accusation,” the court said.
Justice Narula stated that the court’s role is to critically assess whether a petition genuinely presents a valid cause of action deserving of its intervention.
As Ramesh’s petition lacked necessary details and specifics, it was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Pending applications were also disposed of in light of the dismissal.
–Ajit Weekly News
spr/dan
News Credits – I A N S
