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.