despite the appellant complaining to the returning officer about the different companyours of ballot papers on the companynting tables numberproper attention was paid to his complaint.
the high companyrt by its impugned judgment and order dated 13.1.1997 rejected the election petition of the appellant under section 83 l a of the representation of people act read with order 7 rule 11 on the ground that the petition did number disclose a companyplete cause of action and was therefore number maintainable.
the appellant challenged the election of respondent number1 before the patna high companyrt by filing an election petition.
1997 supp 5 scr 616 the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mrs.
respondent number 1 filed a petition before the high companyrt under order 7 rule l l of the civil procedure companye read with order 6 rule 16 of the civil procedure companye raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the election petition.
sujata v. manohar j. the appellant and the respondents companytested the vidhan sabha election held in march 1995 from the 190 lakhisarai constituency in the state of bihar.
in this petition he challenged the election under section 100 l d iii of the representation of the people act 1951 alleging that the result of the election had been materially affected by the improper reception of votes and by mixing the votes of the appellant with the votes of other companytesting candidates.
respondent number i was declared as the returned candidate.
