Representation of People Act, 1951 – ss. 83 and 100(1)(a)and (d)(i), 101 and 125A(i) – Appellant challenged the election ofrespondent no.1 by filing election petition before the High Courtalleging that respondent no.1 had grossly violated severalinstructions issued by the Election Commission and also theprovisions of the Representation of People Act – Respondent no.1,in turn, filed two applications and sought to strike out paragraphs2 & 9 to 11 of the election petition u/Or. VI, r.16 and to dismiss theelection petition in limine u/Or. VII, r.11, both of which were allowedby the High Court – Propriety of – On appeal, held: Not proper –The approach of the High Court in considering the two applicationswas manifestly erroneous – It had ventured into the area of analysisof the matter on merit – That was a prohibited area at that stage –High Court misdirected itself in concluding that the election petitiondid not disclose any cause of action with or without paragraphs 2& 9 to 11 of election petition – There was discernible pleading as towhat objections were taken before the Returning officer and as towhy he was in error in not rejecting the nomination of respondentno.1 – The said paragraphs plainly disclosed the facts, which werematerial facts for adjudicating the grounds for declaring the electionof respondent no.1 as being void, because of improper acceptanceof his nomination form by the Returning officer – Averments madein the concerned paragraphs of the election petition were notfrivolous and vexatious – The election petition would have to beexamined as a whole without subtracting any portion thereform –Not possible to take a view that the same did not disclose any causeof action – Thus, applications filed by the respondent No.1 in thesubject election petition rejected – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –Or. VI, r.17 and Or. VII, r.11 – Election Laws.