ASHRAF KOKKURversusK.V. ABDUL KHADER ETC.

                    [2014] 7 S.C.R. 1123
                •
                     ASHRAF KOKKUR                               A
                             v.
                K.V. ABDUL KHADER ETC.
             (Civil Appeal Nos. 69-70 of 2012)
                       AUGUST 29, 2014
                                                                  B
    [MADAN B. LOKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

      0.7, r. 11 (a) - Cause of action - Election petition - c
Challenging the election· of returned candidate to State
Legislative Assembly -. On the ground of disqualification as
he was holding office of profit, i.e. Chairperson of Kera/a State
Wakf Board - Petition dismissed by High Court holding that
it did not disclose a complete cause of action or a triable issue D
- Held: The inquiry under 0. 7, r. 11 (a) is only as to whether
the facts as pleaded disclose a cause of action arid not
complete cause of action - The limited inquiry is only to see
whether the petition should be thrown out at the threshold -
Holding an office of. profit under Government of India or
                                                                   E
Governm·ent of any State is the disqualification - Whether that
ground is discernible if the election petition is read as a whole,
is the simple exercise to be undertaken by High Court, when
called upon to do so under 0. 7, r. 11 (a) - In the instant case,
the averments made in the election petition clearly disclose
a cause of action, viz. respondent was holding the position as F
Chairperson of Kera/a State Wakf Board and deriving
financial benefits from Kera/a Government and, as such, was
disqualified under Art. 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,
as holding of an office of profit under State Government of
Kera/a - That is the triable issue in the election petition.       G

     Representation of the People Act, 1951:
                                                                      '1~



     s. 83 - Election petition - Material facts - Election of
                               1123                               H
    1124      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A returned candidate challenged on the ground of
    disqualification as he was holding an office of profit - High
    Court rejecting the petition holding that it did not contain a
    pleading that respondent was holding an office of profit under
    State Government - Held: The requirement u/s 83(1)(a) in
  s contradistinction to s.83(1)(b) is that the election petition need
    contain only a concise statement of the material facts and not
    material particulars - The expression 'material facts' plainly
    means facts pertaining to the subject matter and which are
    relied on by the election petitioner - If the party does not
  c prove those facts, he fails at the trial - In the instant case, the
    pleadings, (as contained in election petition and Annexure
    P1 (d), which forms an integral part of election petition) if taken
    as a whole, would clearly show that they constitute the material
    facts so as to pose a triable issue as to whether respondent
.   is disqualified to contest election to Kera/a State Legislative
  0
    Assembly while holding an office of profit under State
    government as Chairperson of Kera/a State Wakf Board - In
    an election petition, the requirement uls 83 is to provide a
    precise and concise statement of material facts - The
    expression 'material facts' plainly means facts pertaining to
  E the subject matter and which are relied on by election
    petitioner - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.191.

       s.83 - Election petition - Annexures thereto- Held: In the
  instant case, all the annexures attached to election petition
F in the instant case have been signed and verified by election
  petitioner as per the requirement uls 83(2) - Therefore,
  Annexure-P1 (d) to the election petition forms an integral part
  of election petition - There is a clear and unambiguous plea
  that respondent was holding the post of Chairman, Kera/a
G State Wakf Board, an office of profit under Government of
  Kera/a and, as such, he was disqualified.

        The respondent was the Chairperson of the Kerala
    State Wakf Board when he contested the election to the
    Kerala Legislative Assembly. The appellant objected to
H
     ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER               1125


his nomination, as per Annexure P1 (d) to the election A
petition. However, as per order dated 29.03.2011, the
objection was overruled. The respondent was eventually
elected. The, appellant filed· an election petition
challenging the election of the respondent on the ground
of disqualification as he was holding an office of profit 8
i.e. Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board. The
election petition was dismissed in limine, by the High
Court holding that it did not disclose a complete cause
of action or a triable issue. The High Court further held
that the election petition did not clearly contain a c
"pleading that the respondent holds an office of profit
under the State Government. The pleading is only to the
effect that the respondent holds an office of profit" .

   . Allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                              D
     HELD: 1.1. The inquiry under 0. 7, r. 11(a) of CPC' is
only as to whether the facts as pleaded disclose a cause
of action and not complete cause of action. The limited
inquiry is only tq see whether the petition should be
thrown out at the threshold. In an election petition, the E
requiremenf u/s 83 of the RP Act is to provide a precise
and concise statement of material facts. The expression
'material facts' plainly means facts pertaining to the
subject matter and which are relied on by the election
petitioner. If the party does not prove those facts, he fails F
at the trial. [para 25j [1143-D-F]

      1.2. In Hari Shanker Jain's case, a three-Judge
·Bench of this Court held that the expression 'cause of
 action' would mean facts to be proved, if traversed, in
 order to support his right to the judgment of the court and G
 that the function of the party is to present a full picture
 of the cause of action with such further information so
 as to make opposite party understand the case he will
 have to meet. [para 29) [1145-B-C]
                                                             H
    1126   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A      Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi 2001 (3)
    Suppl. SCR 38 = (2001) 8 SCC 233 - relied on

       Syed Dastagir v. T. R. Gopalakrishna Setty 1999 (1)
  Suppl. SCR 351 = 1999 (6) sec 337 I Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v.
8
  Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express 2006
  (1) SCR 860 = 2006 (3) SCC 100; Ponnala Lakshmaiah v.
  Kommuri Pratap Reddy and others 2012 (6) SCR 851= 2012
  (7) SCC 788, Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi and another
  1972 (3) SCR 841 = 1972 (3) SCC 850 - referred to.

C      1.3. In the instant case, the charge levelled is that the
  respondent holds an office of profit as the Chairperson
  of the Kerala State Wakf Board and in that capacity he
  enjoys the profits attached to. that office from the
  Government of Kerala. Holding an office of profit under
D the Government of India or Government of any State is
  the disqualification. Whether that ground is discernible if·
  the election petition is read as a whole, is the simple
  exercise to be undertaken by the High Court, when called
  upon to do so under 0.7, r.11(a) of CPe. At Paragraph-3
E of the election petition, it is contended that the
  respondent was holding an office .of profit, viz., the
  Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board. Again, in the
  same paragraph, it is stated that the Chairperson of the
  State Wakf Board receives such remuneration as are
F provided for and prescribed by the Government of Kerala.
  After quoting Art. 191 of the Constitution, it is pleaded that
  any person who holds an office of profit under the State
  Government, is debarred from contesting the elections to
  the Legislative Assembly. It is again pleaded that the State
G of Kerala having not made any legislation on removal of
  disqualification of the Chairperson of the Wakf Board, the
  Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board is
  disqualified under Art. 191 of the Constitution. At
  Paragraph-6, enumerating the particulars, it is pleaded
  that the respondent was holding an office of profit in
H
    ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER                  1127

having been granted honorarium, allowances and                  A
enjoying the facility of a car at State expenses and
drawing other pecuniary advantages. Again, under
Paragraph-7, it is stated that the respondent was
provided with chauffeur whose salary and allowances are
paid also from the funds of the Government of Kerala. At        B
Paragraph-10, it is clearly stated that "since admittedly on
the date of the election, the first Respondent was holding
an office of profit as Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf
Board, he was disqualified to contest the election". These
averments clearly disclose a cause of action, viz. the          C
respondent was holding the position as Chairperson of
the Kerala State Wakf Bo~rd and deriving financial
benefits from the Kerala Government and, as such, was
disqualified under Art. 191 (1 )(a) of the Constitution of
India, as holding of an office of profit under the State
Government of Kerala. That is the triable issue in the          0
election petition. [para 15 and 26) [1136-F-H; 1137-A-H]

     1.4. The requirement u/s 83(1 )(a) of the RP Act in
contradistinction to s.83(1)(b) of the RP Act is that the
election petition need contain only a concise statement         E
of the material tacts and not material particulars. In V.S.
Achuthanandan's case, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court has taken the view that only because full
particulars are not given, an election petitioner is not to
be thrown out at the threshold. [para 14 and 27) [1136-D;       F
1144-B-C]

   V. S. ·Achuthanandan v. P. J. Francis and another 1999 (2)
SCR 99 = 1999 (3) SCC 737- referred to.

     1.5. All the annexures attached to the election petition   G
in the instant case have been signed and verified by the
election petitioner as per the requirement u/s 83(2) of the
RP Act. Therefore, Annexure-P1(d) to the election petition
forms an integral part of the election petition. There is a
clear and unambiguous plea that the respondent was              H
    1128     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A holding the post of Kerala State Wakf Board, holding an
  office of profit under the Government of Kerala and, as
  such, he was disqualified. [para 19] [1140-H; 1141-A-B]

      G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar 2013 (4)
B SCR 1107 = (2013) 4 SCC 776; and M. Kama/am v. Dr. V.A.
  Syed Mohammed 1978 (3) SCR 446 = (1978)2 SCC 659 -
    relied on.

          Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar 1968 SCR 13 =
    AIR 1968 SC 1079 - referred to.
c
      1.6. The pleadings, (as contained in election petition
  and Annexure P1(d), which forms an integral part of
  election petition) if taken as a whole, would clearly show
  that they constitute the material facts so as to pose a
  triable issue as to whether the first respondent is
0
  disqualified to contest election to the Kerala State
  Legislative Assembly while holding an office of profit
  under the State government as Chairperson of the Kerala
  State Wakf Board. [para 23] [1143-A-B]

E      1.7. The question is not whether the Chairperson of
  the Kerala State Wakf Board is an office of profit or not.
  That is the issue to be tried. Question is whether the
  petitioner has raised such a question in the election
  petition. The disqualification under the Constitution of
F India being, holding an office of profit under the State
  Government. Petitioner has furnished all the material
  particulars in that regard. Therefore, the petition
  discloses a cause of action. [para 24] [1143-B-D]       •

      Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba alias Dadasaheb
G and others 1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 850 = 1994 (2) SCC 392 -
    relied on.

          Azhar   Hussain    v.   Rajiv   Gandhi    1986 SCR
    782   =1986 Suppl. SCC315 - referred to.
H
     ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER                  1129


     Philipps v. Philipps and others (1878) 4 QBD 127, 133        A
- referred to.

    1.8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
election petition having disclosed a cause of action, it
should not have been thrown out at the threshold. The             8
impugned order and judgment are set aside. The election
petition is remitted to the High Court for trial in
accordance with law. [para 34] [1148-8-C]]

                     Case Law Reference:
                                                                  c
  1968 SCR 13                     referred to      para 16
  1978 (3) SCR 446                relied on        para 18
  2013 (4) SCR 1107               relied on        para 21
  (1878) 4 QBD 127, 133           relied on        para 25        D

   1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 850        relied on        para 25
   1986 SCR 782                   referred to      para 26
   1999 (2) SCR 99                referred to      para 27        E
   2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 38         relied on        para 29
   1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 351        referred to      para 30
   2006 (1) SCR 860               referred to      para 31
                                                                  F
   2012 (6) SCR 851               referred to      para 32
   1972 (3) SCR 841               referred to      para 33
    CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 69-
70 of 2012.                                                       G

     From the Judgment and Order 16.11.2011, in I.A. No. 4
of 2011 in Election Petition No. 2 of 2011 of the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam.
                                                                  H
    1130     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A        R. Basant E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.

        Rajiv Dhawan, V.K. Verma, V.K. Biju, Vijay Laxmi for the
    Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
         KURIAN, J.: 1. The simple question arising for
    consideration in this case is whether the averments in the
    election petition disclose a cau$e pf actfon as required under
    Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
c   (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'). Incidentally, it may be noted
    that the election petition has been dismissed by the impugned
    judgment dated 16.11.2011, which reads as follows:

                             "JUDGMENT
                                       .
D        I.A. 4/11 is allowed. Election petition is dismissed in limine
         as it does not disclose a complete cause of action or a
         triable issue."

       Of course, detailed reasons are given in the order dated
E 16.11.2011 in I.A. 4/2011, which is also under challenge in one
  of the appeals.

       2. The sole ground in the election. petition is that the
  respondent is disqualified under Article 191 (1 )(a) of the
  Constitution of India, since he was holding the post of
F Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board. To the extent
  relevant, the Article reads as follows:
         "191. Disqualification for membership.-(1) xxx

         (a) if he holds office of profit under the Government of India
G
         or the Government of any State specified in the First
         Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature
         of the State by law not to disqualify its holder;"
                                                (Emphasis supplied)
H
     ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER                     1131
                [KURIAN, J.]
      3. The High Court has taken the view that the election         A
petition does not clearly contain a pleading that the respondent
holds an office of profit under the State Government. The
pleading is only to the effect that the respondent holds an office
of profit.

     4. Therefore, the only inquiry that is required in this case    B
is to see on reading the election petition as a whole, whether
the petitioner has disclosed a cause of action.

UNDISPUTED FACTS

    5._The respondent was the Chairperson of the Kerala State        C
Wakf Board when he contested the election to the Kerala
Legislative Assembly. The petitioner in fact objected fo his
nomination, as per Annexure P1 (d) (Annexure-D). The
objection, to the extent relevant, reads as follows:
                                                                     D
     "Mr. Abdul Kader is candidate for Guruvayoor Constituency.
     He is Chairman of Kerala State Wakf Board. He is holding
     an office of profit under Government of Kerala and hence
     disqualified."

                                            (Emphasis supplied)      E

    6. However, as per order d3ted 29.03.2011, the objection
was overruled holding that the petitioner failed to prove beyond
doubt as to whether the elected office bearers of the Wakf Board
would come under the purview of the office of profit as stated
                                                                     F
under Article 191 of the Copstitution of India [Annexure-P1 (c)-
(Annexure-C)].

PLEADINGS IN THE ELECTION PETITION
      7. To see whether the facts pleaded in the election petition   G
constitute a cause of action, we shall extract the relevant ones,
with emphasis supplied. At Paragraph-3 of the election petition,
it is stated as follows:
      "3.    The petitioner respectfully submits that on the date
             of election, the first respondent was disqualified to   H
    1132         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A                 contest the election as he was admittedly on that
                  day holding an office of profit, namely the
                  Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board. In
                  terms of Section 14(9) of the Wakf Act (Central Act
                  43) of 1995, the Chairperson of the State Wakf
B                 Board, which is constituted by the State
                  Government, namely the first respondent was
                  appointed as Chairman of the Kerala State Wakf
                  Board on 29th December, 2008 ..... "

                  xxx xxx         xxx
c
                  "The Chairperson of the State Wakf Board is
                  performing public duties particularly of statutory
                  nature under the Wakf Act 1995. He exercises even
                  Quasi Judicial and supervisory powers. He receives
D                 such remuneration as are provided for and
                  prescribed by the Government of Kerala .... "

         8. Paragraph-4 of the election petition to the extent
    relevant, reads as follows:

E       "4. Article 191 of the Constitution of India to the extent
           .
        relevant reads as follows:-

        "191. Disqualification of membership.-(1) A person shall
        be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a
F       member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council
        of a State-

           (a}     if he holds any office of profit under the Government
                   of India or the Government of any State specified
                   in the First Schedule, other than an office declared
G                  by the Legislature of the State by law not to
                   disqualify its holder;

           (b)     if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by
                   a competent court;
H
     ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER                      1133
                [KURIAN, J.]
     (c)   if he is an undischarged insolvent;                        A

     (d)   if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily
           acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is
           under any acknowledgement of allegiance or
           adherence to a foreign State;                              8
     (e)   if he is so disqualified by or under any law made
           by Parliament.

    (Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, a person
    shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the         c
    Government of India or the Government of any State
    specified in the First Schedule by reason only that he is a
    Minister either for the Union or for such State.

    (2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of
    the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State        D
    if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule)." ·

     9 .. Paragraph-5 of the election petition refers to the
objection before the Returning Officer and the order passed
thereof, which we have already referred to above.                     E

    10. Paragraph-6 of the election petition reads as follows:

   . "6. The petitioner respectfully submits that in terms of the
     principles evolved by the Apex Court, the first Respondent
     falls within the expression.'holder of an office of profit' in   F
     view of the following admitt!';?d facts, among other tests.

     (1)    He was _appointed by the State of Kerala, from
            members of a statutorily constituted body.
                                                                      ·G
     (2)    He is removable by the State Government.

     (3)    The resignation tendered by him has to be
            accepted and a successor appointed and said
            appointment should be duly notified in the Gazette,
                                                                      H
    1134         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A                 which was not done.

        . (4)     The first Respondent has been admittedly granted
                  honorarium, allowances and enjoying the facility of
                  a car at State expenses and drawing other
B                 pecuniary advantages.

       .. (5)     The offi~ held by him is a public office.

           (6)    There i~ a degree of control by and dependence
                  on government and governmental functions are
c                 performed. ·

         Besides, paying the remuneration the functions performed
         by the first Respondent, the holder of an office of profit, are
         carried on by him from the Government with an effective
         Governmental control over his duties· and functions.
D        Undoubtedly from the office that he holds the first
         Respondent is deriving pecuniary gains and the office he
       . holds is that of a permanent nature."

       11 . At Paragraph-7 of the election petition, it is pleaded
E as follows:

           "7.    The first Respondent has been granted the facility
                  of a car driver whose salary and other allowances
                  are paid also from the funds of the Government of
                  Kerala. This also goes to point out that the office
F
                  that he holds is that of an 'office of p~ofit' .... "
         12. At Paragraph-10 of the election petition, it is averred
    as follows:
G       "10. Since; admittedly on the date of the eJection, the first
        Respondent was holding an -office of profit as Chairperson
        of the Kerala State Wakf Board, he was disqualified t"
        contest the elections-... .n •                        ,/




H
     ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER                       1135
                [KURIAN, J.]
    13. Ground-A of ttie election petition, to the extent relevant,    A
reads as follows:

      "A.  Admittedly on the date of the election, the returned
           candidate, the first Respondent was disqualified to
           contest the elections under Section 100 (1) (a) in B
           that he was holdiflg an office of profit as
           contemplated under Alticle 191 of the Constitution
        " 'Of India, the Chairperson of the Wakf Board.
           Admittedly the first Respondent was appointed by
           the State of Kerala. Concededly he was entitled to C
           and was drawing financial perquisites and
           allowances and enjoying pecuniary benefit from the
           State as Chairperson of the State Wakf Board. He
           therefore, was holding an office of profit which is a
           disqualification as contemplated under Article 191
           of the Constitution of India and even now he is . D
           continuing as such in the position. Thus, the first
           respondent was wholly disqualified to contest the
           elections to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly.
               "
                                                                       E
THE REPRESE~TATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951

    14. Section 83 of The Representation of the People Act,
1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RP Act'), reads as follows:

   . "83. Contents of petition.-(1) An election petition-              F

      (a)   shall contain a concise statement of the material
            facts on which the petitioner relies;

      (b)   shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice   G
            that the petitioner alleges, including as full a
            statement as possible of the names of the parties
            alleged to have committed such corrupt practice
            and the date and place of the commission of each
            such practice; and
                                                                       H
    1136         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A          (c)    shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the
                  manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure,
                  1908(5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:

        [Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt
        practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an
B
        affidavit in the prescribed form· if! support of the allegation
        of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.]

        (2) Any schedule or annexure to·the petition shall also be
        signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner
c       as the petition.]"

                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

       The requirement under Section 83(1 )(a) of the RP Act in I
  contradistinction to Section 83(1) (b) of the RP Act is that the
D election petition need contain only a concise statement of the
  material facts and not material particulars. 'Concise' according
  to Oxford Dictionary means, 'b.rief and comprehensive'.
  Concise Oxford Dictionary has given the meaning to the
  expression 'Concise' as 'giving a lot of information clearly and
E in few words'. As per Webster Comprehensive Dictionary,
  International Edition, expression has been defined as
  'expressing much in·brief form'. Having furnished the facts in a
  compendious manner, can it be said that thete is no concise
  statement of material facts?
F
        15. Holding an office of profit under the Government of
  India or Government of any State is the disqualification.
  Whether that ground is discernible if the election petition is
  read as a whole, is the simple exercise to be undertaken by
  the High Court, when called upon to do so under Order VII Rule
G 11 (a) of CPC. At Paragraph-3 of the election petition, it is
  contended t~at the respondent was holding an office of profit,
  viz., the Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board. Again,
  in the same paragraph, it is stated that the Chairperson of the
H State Wakf Board receives such remuneration as are provided
     ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER                      1137
                [KURIAN, J.]
for and prescribed by the Government of Kerala. After quoting A
Article 191 of the Constitution, it is pleaded that any person who·
holds an office of profit under the State Government, is debarred
from contesting the elections to the Legislative Assembly. It is
again pleaded that the State of Kerala having not made any
legislation on removal of disqualification of the Chairperson of B
the Wakf Board, the Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf
Board is disqualified under Article 191 of the Constitution. At
Paragraph-6, enumerating the particulars, it is pleaded that he
was holding an office of profit in having been granted
honorarium, allowances and enjoying the facility of a car at c
State expenses and drawing other pecuniary advantages.
Again, under Paragraph-?, it is stated that the first respondent
was provided with chauffeur whose salary and allowances are
paid also from the funds of the Government of Kerala. At
 Paragraph-10, it is clearly stated that "since admittedly on the 0
date of the election, the first Respondent was holding an office
of profit as Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board, he
was disqualified to contest the election". In Ground-A in the
election petition, it is reiterated that the first respondent suffered
 from the disqualification under ~rticle 191 of the Constitution E
 of India since he was holding an office of profit as Chairperson
of the Wakf Board and that he was entitled and drawing
 financial perquisites and allowances and pecuniary benefits
 from the State of Kerala as Chairperson of the Kerala State
 Wakf Board and, hence, he was holding an office of profit
 which was a disqualification under Article 191 of the F
 Constitution of india. Thus, he was disqualified to contest the
 election to th~ Kerala State Legislative Assembly. These
 averments, to us, clearly disclose a cause of action, viz., the
 respondent was holding the position as Chairperson of the
 Kerala State Wakf Board and deriving financial benefits from . G
 the Kerala Government is disqualified under Article 191(1)(a)
 of the Constitution of India, as holding of an office of profit under
 the State Government of Kerala. That is the triable issue in the
  election petition.
                                                                       H
    1138      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A       16. The question whether a schedule or annexures to the
  election petition is an integral part of the election petition was
  first discussed by this Court in Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh
  Aharwar1. It was held that a schedule or an annexure which is
  merely an evidence in the case and included only for the sake
B of adding strength to the petitioner, does not form an integral
  part of the election petition. It was a case where the annexures
  were not verified by the election petitioner as required under
  Section 83(2) of the RP Act.

         17. The question raised in Sahodrabai Rai case (supra)
C was:

         "Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for
         contravention of Section 81 (3) 2 of The Representation of
         the People Act, 1951 as copy of Annexure-A to the petition
D        was not given along with the petition for being served on
         the respondents."

       18. The issue was again considered by this Court in M.
  Kama/am v. ·Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed3. Paragrapti-5 of the
E s~id judgment reads as follows:

         "5. Now, the first question which arises is as to what
            •
         constitutes an election petition for the purpose of Section
         81 sub-section (3). Is it confined only to election petition
         proper or does it also include a schedule or annexure
F        contemplated in sub-section (2) of Section 83 or a
         supporting affidavit referred to in the proviso to Section 83
         sub-section (1)? To answer this question, we must turn to


G   1.   AIR 1968 SC 1079.
    2.   81. Presentation of Petitioner.-XXX (3) Every election petition shall be
    accompained by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned
    in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioners under
    his own signature to be a true of the petition.
H   3.   (1978) 2 sec 659.
ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER                     1139
           [KURIAN, J.]
Section 83 which deals with contents of an election             A
petition. Sub-section (1) of that section sets out what an
election petition shall contain and provides that it shall be
signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid
down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the
verification of pleadings. The proviso requires that where      8
the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the election
petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the
prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt
practice and the particulars thereof. The context in which
the proviso occurs clearly suggests that the affidavit is       C
intended to be regarded as part of the election petition.
Otherwise, it need not have been introduced in a section
dealing with contents of an election petition nor figured as
a proviso to a sub-section which lays down what shall be
the contents of an election petition. Sub-section (2) also
                                                                0
by analogy supports this inference. It provides that any
schedule or annexure to an election petition shall be signed
   )

by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as an
election petition. It is now established by the decision of
this Court in Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar that
sub-section (2) applies only to a schedule or annexure          E
which is an integral part qf the election petition and not to
a schedule or annexure which is merely evidence in the
case but which is annexed to the election petition merely
for the sake of adding strength to it. The scope and ambit
of sub-section (2) was explained in the following words by      F
Hidayatullah, J., speaking on behalf of the Court in
Sahodrabai case at pp. 19-20:

       "We are quite clear that sub-section (2) of Section
       83 has reference not to a document which is G
       produced as evidence of the averments of the
       election petition but to averments of the election ·
       petition which are put, not in the election petition but
       in the accompanying schedules or annexures. We
       can give quite a number ofexamples from which it H
    1140    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A              would be apparent that many of the averments of
               the election petition are capable of being put as
               schedules or annexures. For example, the details
               of the corrupt practice there in the former days used
               to be set out separately in the schedules and which
B              may, in some cases, be so done even after the
               amendment of the present ·law. Similarly, details of
               the averments too compendious for being included
               in the election petition may be set out in the
               schedules or annexures to the election petition. The
               law then requires that even though they are outside
c              the election petition, they must be signed and
               verified, but such annexures or schedules are then
               treated as integrated with the election petition and
               copies of them must be served on the respondent
               if the requirement regarding service of the election
D              petition is. to be wholly complied with. But what we
               have said here does not apply to documents which
               are merely evidence in the case but which for
               reasons of clarity and to lend force to the petition
               are not kept back but produced or filed with the
E              election petitions. They are in no sense an integral
               part of the averments of the petition but are only
               evidence of those averments and in proof thereof."

        It would. therefore. be seen that if a schedule or annexure
F       is an integral part of the election petition, it must be signed 1
        by the petitioner and verified. since it forms part of the
        election petition. The subject-matter of sub-section (2) is
        thus a schedule or annexure forming part of the election
        petition and hence it is placed in Section 83 which deals
G
        with contents of an election petition .... "

                                                (Emphasis supplied)

        19. All the annexures attached to the election petition in
  the present case have been signed and verified by the election
H petitioner as per the requirement under Section 83(2) of the RP
       ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER                      1141
                  [KURIAN, J.]

 Act, as can be seen from Annexure-P1 (Colly). Therefore, A
 Annexure-P1 (d) to the election petition (Annexure-0 herein)·
·forms an integral part of the election petition. There is a clear
 and unambiguous plea that the respondent was holding the post
 of Kerala State Wakf Board, holding an office of profit under
 the Government of Kerala and, hence, he was disqualified.         B

      20. Annexure-D is referred at Paragraph-5 of the election
petition, which reads as follows:

      "5. Even so, the first Respondent submitted his nomination
      before the Returning Officer in the said Constituency.            C
      Objection was taken that t~e first Respondent was
      disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the
      Constitution of India. But the same was rejected by the
      Returning Officer without any application of Mind. A copy
      of the order is produced herewith and· marked as                  D
      Annexure C, the date shown therein has been corrected
      as 29.3.2011, while its English translation is produced
      herewith and marked as Annexure C1 and the objection
      submitted by the petitioner with the forwarding letter is
      produced and marked as Annexure D."                               E

      21. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in G.M.
 Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar' (Judgment is authored by one
 of us, Lokur, J.), had an occasion to refer to this issue. Referring
 to Sahodrabai Rai case (supra), it was held at Paragraphs-
                                                                        F
 54 to 56 as follows:

       "54. In Sahodrabai Raiv. Ram Singh Aha!War°the question
       raised was as follows: (AIR p. 1080, para 3)

              "3 . ... 'Whether the election petition is liable to be   G
              dismissed for contravention of Section 81 (3) of the
              Representation of the People Act, 1951 as copy of
              Annexure A to the petition was not given along with
 ----..,..---
 4.   (2013) 4 sec 776.
 5.   AIR 1996 SC 1079.                                                 H
    1142    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A              the petition for being served on the respondents."'

        55. It was noted that the contents of the pamphlet, in
        translation, were incorporated in the election petition. It
        was also noted that the trial of an election petition has to
B       follow, as far as may be, the provisions of CPC. Therefore,
        this Court approached the problem by looking at CPC to
        ascertain what would have been the case if what was
        under consideration was a suit and not the trial of an
        election petition.
c       56. It was held that where the averments are too
        compendious for being included in an election petition, they
        may be set out in the schedules or annexures to the
        election petition. In such an event, these schedules or
        annexures would be an integral part of the election petition
D       and must, therefore, be served on the respondents. This
        is quite distinct from documents which may be annexed
        to the election petition by way of evidence and so do not
        form an integral part of the averments of the election
        petition and may not, therefore, be served on the
E       respondents."                                      ·

       22. Further, at Paragraph-57, there is also reference to M.
    Kama/am case (supra) and it is held as follows:

        "57. In M. Kama/am v. V.A. Syed Mohammed this Court
F       followed Sahodrabai Rai and held that a schedule or an
        annexure which is an integral parl of an election petition
        must comply with the provisions of Section 83(2) of the
        Act. Similarly, the affidavit referred to in the proviso to
        Section 83(1) of the Act where the election petition
G       alleges corrupt practices by the returned candidate also
        forms a parl of the election petition. If the affidavit, at the
        end of the election petition is attested as a true copy, then
        there is sufficient compliance with the requiremeht of
        Section 81 (3) of the Act and would tantamount to attesting
H       the election petition itself."
      ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER                      1143
                 [KURIAN, J.]
      23. The pleadings, if taken as a whole, would clearly show       A
/that they constitute the material facts so as to pose a triable
 issue as to whether the first respondent is disqualified to contest
election to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly while holding
 an office of profit under the State government as Chairperson
 of the Kerala State Wakf Board.                                       B

     24. The question is not whether the Chairperson of the
Kerala State Wakf Board is an office of profi~or not. That is
the issue to be tried. Question is whether the petitioner has
raised such a question in the election petition. The
disqualification under the Constitution of India being, holding        C
an office of profit under the State Government. Petition~r has
furnished all the material particulars in that regard. Therefore,
t~e petition discloses a cause of action.

     25. After all, the inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC     D
is only as to whether the facts as pleaded disclose a cause of
action and not complete cause of action. The limited inquiry is
only to see whether the petition should be thrown out at the·
threshold. In an election petition, the·requirement under Section
83 of the RP Act is to provide a precise and concise statement         E
of material facts. The expression 'material facts' plainly means
facts pertaining to the subject matter and which are relied on
by the election petitioneL If the party does not prove those facts,
he fails at the trial (see Philipps v. Philipps and others6; Mohan
Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba alias Dadasaheb and others7).                F

    26. This Court in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi8 , at
Paragraph-11, has held that:

      "11 .... Whether in an election petition a particular fact is
      material or not and as such required to be pleaded is            G


 6.   (1878) 4 QBD 127, 133.
 1.   (1994) 2 sec 392, 399.
 8.   1986 supp sec 315.                                               H
    1144       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A        dependent on the nature of the charge levelled and the
         circumstances of the case .... "

       The charge levelled is that the respondent holds an office
  of profit as the Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board
B and in that capacity he enjoys the profits attached to that office
  from the Government of Kerala.

         27. In V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis and anothefl,
  a three-Judge Bench of this Court has taken th~ view that only
  because full particulars are not given, an election petitioner is
C not to be thrown out at the threshold. To quote Paragraph-15:

         "15 . ... An election petition was not liable to be dismissed
         in limine merely because full particulars of corrupt practice
         alleged were not set out. It is, therefore, evident that
D        material facts are such primary facts which must be proved
         at the trial by a party to establish existence of a cause of
         action. Whether in an election petition a particular fact is
         a material fact or not, and as such, required to be pleaded
         is a question which depends on the nature of the charge
         levelled, the ground relied upon, and in the light of the
E
         special circumstances of the case ... "

        28. Again at Paragraph-16 of V.S. Achuthanandan case
    (supra), it was held that:

F        "16 . ... So long as the claim discloses some cause of
         action or raises some questions fit to be decided by a
         Judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely
         to succeed is no ground for striking it out. The implications
         of the liability of the pleadings to be struck out on the
G        ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action are
         generally more known than clearly understood ... ."

         xxx                          xxx                xxx
    9.   (1999) 3 sec 737.
H   10. (2001) a sec 233.
     ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER                       1145
                [KURIAN, J.]
     " ... the failure of the pleadings to disclose a reasonable       A
     cause of action is distinct from the absence of full
     particulars .... "

                                            (Emphasis supplied)'

      29. In Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi 10, a three-Judge       B
Bench of this Court held that the expression 'cause of action'
would mean facts to be proved, if traversed, in order to support
his right to the judgment of the court and that the function of the
party is to present a full picture of the cause of action with such
further information so as to make opposite party understand the        C
case he will have to meet. To quote Paragraph-23:

     "23 .... The expression "cause of action" has been
     compendiously defined to mean every fact which it would
     be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in otder   D
     to support his right to the judgment of court. Omission of
     a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of
     action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The
     function of the party is to present as full a picture of the
     cause of action with such further information in detail as        E
     to make the opposite party understand the case he will
     have to meet. (See Samant N. Balkrishna v. George
     Fernandez, Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari.)
     Merely quoting the words of the section like chanting of a
     mantra does not amount to stating material facts. Material
                                                                       F
     facts would include positive statement of facts as also
     positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary. In V.S.
     Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis this Court has held, on a
     conspectus of a series of decisions of this Court, that
     material facts are such preliminary facts which must be
     proved at the trial by a party to establish existence of a        G
      cause of action. Failure to plead "material facts" is fatal to
     the election petition and no amendment of the pleadings
      is permissible to introduce such material facts after the
      time-limit prescribed for filing the election petition."
                                                                       H
    1146     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014) 7 S.C.R.

A        30. In Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty11, while
    referring to the pleadings, it has been held at Paragraph-9 that:

        ~'9 .... In construing a plea in any pleading, courts must
         keep in mind that a plea is not an expression of art and
B        science but an expression through words to place fact and
         law of one's case for a relief. Such an expression may be
         pointed, precise, sometimes vague but still it.could be
         gathered what he wants to convey through only by reading
         the whole pleading, depending on the person drafting a
           I .... "
         pea
c
         " ... So to insist for a mechanical production of the exact
         words of a statute is to insist for the form rather than the
         essence. So the absence of form cannot dissolve an
         essence if already pleaded."
D
         31. In Mayar(H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V.
    Fortune Express 12, this Court at Paragraph-12 held that:

         "12 .... The court has to read the entire plaint as a whole
         to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it
E        does, then the plaint can"not be rejected by the court
         exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
         Essentially, whether the plaint di?closes a cause of action,
         is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis
         of the averments made il'I the plaint in its entirety taking
F        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
G        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

    11. (1999) e sec 337.
H 12. (2006) 3 sec 100.
    ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER                     1147
               [KURIAN, J.]
    court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the       A
    plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection
    of the plaint"

    32. In a recent decision in Ponnala Lakshmaiah v.
Kommuri Pratap Reddy and others 13, this Court had held at
                                                                    8
Paragraphs-17 and 29 that:

    "17.... The courts need to be cautious in dealing with
    requests for dismissal of the petitions at the threshold and
    exercise their powers of dismissal only in cases where
    even on a plain reading of the petition no cause of action      C
    is disclosed."

                                          (Emphasis supplied)
    )()()(                       )()()(
                                                             xxx D
    "29 .... An election which is vitiated by reason of corrupt
        practices, illegalities and irregularities enumerated in
       Sections 100 and 123 of the Act cannot obviously be
             recognised and respected as the decision of the
          majority of the electorate. The courts are, therefore,    E
         duty-bound to examine the allegations whenever the
          same are raised within the framework of the statute
        without being unduly hypertechnical in their approac~
           and without being oblivious of the ground realities."
                                                                    F
     33. Finally, as cautioned by this Court in Raj Narain v.
Indira Nehru Gandhi and another14, it was held that:

    "19. Rules of pleadings are intended as aids for a fair trial
    and for reaching a just decision. An action at law should
    not be equated to a game of chess. Provisions of law are        G
    not mere formulae to be observed as rituals. Beneath the


13. c2012) 1 sec 788.
14. (1972) 3 sec 850.                                               H
    1148     SUPREME CO.URT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A        words of a provision of law. generally speaking, there lies
         a juristic principle. It is the duty of the court to ascertain
         that principle and implement it. ... "

                                                (Emphasis supplied)

B      34. Guided by the settled principles of law referred to
  above, we are of the view that the election petition having
  disclosed a cause of action, it should not, have been thrown out
  af the threshold. The impugned order and judgment are hence
  set aside. The appeals are allowed. The election petition is
C remitted to the High Court for trial in accordance with law.

         35. There is no order as to costs.

    Rajendra Prasad                                    ·Appeals allowed.