AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Perused the impugned order dated 29.5.2017,
whereby the application under Order 13 Rule 4 readwith 151
CPC filed by the respondent - election petitioner (for short
''EP'') has been allowed. Thereby the trial court has allowed
the EP to mark exhibits on six public documents earlier filed
by her soon after the election petition was laid and available
on the record of the court.
Mr. Rajneesh Gutpa, counsel appearing for the
petitioner-returned candidate (for short ''RC'') submitted that
it was incumbent upon the EP at the time when evidence on
her behalf was led, to have the documents filed before the
trial court marked as exhibits. Nothing prevented her from so
doing. In the circumstance, at the stage of final arguments
on the election petition, there was no occasion for the trial
court to entertain the EP''s application under Order 13 Rule 4
CPC readwith Section 151 CPC as an after thought permitting
her to mark the six documents as exhibits. Marking of the
aforesaid six documents as exhibits had been stated to be
prejudicial to the RC, as her defence to the election petition
had at the relevant time been disclosed. It was submitted
that even otherwise the resultant delay in disposal of the
election petition will obstruct the functioning of the returned
candidate as Sarpanch inasmuch as she would be required to
continue to engage herself with the aforesaid election petition
instead of serving the people who elected her to the post of
Sarpanch.
Per Contra, Mr. Yogesh Singhal, appearing for the
EP has submitted that all the six documents allowed to be
marked exhibits under the order dated 29.5.2017 are public
documents. They were on record of the trial court soon after
the election petition was filed. Mr. Yogesh Singhal submitted
that there is therefore, no question of aforesaid documents
being suspect and it was only the negligence of the counsel
for the EP, which has resulted in the aforesaid documents not
being marked as exhibits when witnesses for the EP appeared
before the trial court. It was further submitted that there is
no question of prejudice to the returned candidate inasmuch
as during the resultant small delay in the disposal of the
election petition would only be to the advantage of the RC. It
was further submitted that the intent of the court in a trial
always to do substantial justice and not obstruct the case of
either of the parties before it on technical grounds.
Heard counsel for the returned candidate as also
the election petitioner.
The order dated 29.5.2017 is a discretionary order
passed by the trial court. No doubt the stage at which the
application under Order 13 Rule 4 readwith Section 151 CPC
was filed by the petitioner was at the time when final
arguments were to be heard by the trial court. But also to be
considered is that the documents allowed to be marked
exhibits under the impugned order are all public documents
whose authenticity or admissibility is not in doubt and in any
event they have been on the court''s record for over two
years. Further delay in disposal of the election petition for the
reasons of application under Order 13 Rule 4 readwith
Section 151 CPC being allowed, is not to the prejudice of the
RC, who, in the interregnum till the disposal of the election
petition would continue to enjoy office of Sarpanch. No
question of the RC''s case being prejudiced even otherwise as
the trial court in its impugned order has left open the
opportunity to the RC to rebut the said evidence and cross-
examine the witnesses of the EP on aforesaid documents.
In the aforesaid facts, I am disinclined to interfere
with the impugned order.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.