CWP No. 9923 of 2010 · Rajasthan High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 21 Oct 2011
- Bench
- DINESH MAHESHWARI
Outcome
Partly allowed
This writ petition is partly allowed only to the extent indicated
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XIII r. 10
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. अ(cid:10): आव(cid:12)द(cid:19) सव,क(cid:6)र ककय(cid:6) ज(cid:6)कर आद(cid:12)श ददय(cid:6) ज(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:6) ह(cid:28) कक प$च(cid:6)य(cid:10) सभमर(cid:10) ज(cid:6)यल सजल(cid:6) (cid:19)(cid:6)ग@र क(cid:12) व(cid:6)र(cid:20) (cid:19)$बर 7 क(cid:12) सदसय पद ह(cid:12)(cid:10); ह;ए च;(cid:19)(cid:6)व क(cid:12) समस(cid:10) अभ2ल(cid:12)ख मय म(cid:10)पत(cid:14) क(cid:12) सजल(cid:6) र(cid:19)व(cid:6)(cid:20)च(cid:19) अध(cid:24)क(cid:6)र(cid:25) (सजल(cid:6) कल(cid:12)कटर) (cid:19)(cid:6)ग@र स(cid:12) (cid:10)लब ककए ज(cid:6)व) ।" So far…
Judgment
: 21st October 2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Sunil Beniwal ] Mr.Bherulal Choudhary] for the petitioner Mr.N.S.Acharya for the respondent The application (IA No.14224/2011) is rendered redundant for the matter having already been fixed on 21.10.2011 i.e., today. In view of the urgency stated and the matter being already fixed for this
date, the learned counsel for parties have been heard finally today itself. The petitioner who is defending an election petition filed by the respondent No.1 questioning her election dated 08.02.2010 as the Member of Panchayat Samiti, Jayal from Ward No.7, has preferred this writ petition being aggrieved of the order dated
05.10.2010 (Annex.4) whereby the District Judge, Merta has allowed an application moved by the election-petitioner, purportedly under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC, and has ordered summoning of the entire related election record with ballot papers from the District Election Officer, Nagaur. Paragraph-5 and 6 of the impugned order read as under:- “5. इस पक(cid:6)र दस(cid:10)(cid:6)व(cid:12)ज(cid:14) और ररटर(cid:19)(cid:20)ग अध(cid:24)क(cid:6)र(cid:25) क(cid:12) जव(cid:6)ब स(cid:12) पकट ह(cid:28) कक 50 म(cid:10)(cid:14) क(cid:6) अन(cid:10)र आय(cid:6) ह(cid:28) और य(cid:12) 50 म(cid:10) अप(cid:6)र# स$खय(cid:6) एक क(cid:12) पक म) धग(cid:19)(cid:12) ज(cid:6)कर उस(cid:12) 45 म(cid:10)(cid:14) स(cid:12) ववजय, घ.व/(cid:10) ककय(cid:6) ह(cid:28) (cid:10). यह समस(cid:10) म(cid:10)पत व स$बध(cid:24)(cid:10) अभ2ल(cid:12)ख म$गव(cid:6)य(cid:6) ज(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:6) समयक ह(cid:28) (cid:10)(cid:6)कक नय(cid:6)य(cid:6)लय क(cid:12) समक सह(cid:25) ससरर(cid:10) आ सक(cid:12) । ह(cid:6)ल(cid:6)$कक प(cid:6)र# (cid:19)(cid:12) (cid:10). क(cid:12) वल म(cid:10)पत नय(cid:6)य(cid:6)लय म) म$गव(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:12) क8 प(cid:6)र(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:6) क8 ह(cid:28) ल(cid:12)कक(cid:19) नय(cid:6)य(cid:6)लय व(cid:6)र(cid:20) (cid:19)$बर 7 क(cid:12) च;(cid:19)(cid:6)व क(cid:12) समबन(cid:24), समस(cid:10) अभ2ल(cid:12)ख नय(cid:6)य(cid:6)लय म) र(cid:19)ररकण ह(cid:12)(cid:10); (cid:10)लब कर(cid:19)(cid:6) उधच(cid:10) समझ(cid:10)(cid:6) CWP No.9923/2010 Sugani Devi Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Anr. 2 ह(cid:28)।
अ(cid:10): आव(cid:12)द(cid:19) सव,क(cid:6)र ककय(cid:6) ज(cid:6)कर आद(cid:12)श ददय(cid:6) ज(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:6) ह(cid:28) कक प$च(cid:6)य(cid:10) सभमर(cid:10) ज(cid:6)यल सजल(cid:6) (cid:19)(cid:6)ग@र क(cid:12) व(cid:6)र(cid:20) (cid:19)$बर 7 क(cid:12) सदसय पद ह(cid:12)(cid:10); ह;ए च;(cid:19)(cid:6)व क(cid:12) समस(cid:10) अभ2ल(cid:12)ख मय म(cid:10)पत(cid:14) क(cid:12) सजल(cid:6) र(cid:19)व(cid:6)(cid:20)च(cid:19) अध(cid:24)क(cid:6)र(cid:25) (सजल(cid:6) कल(cid:12)कटर) (cid:19)(cid:6)ग@र स(cid:12) (cid:10)लब ककए ज(cid:6)व) ।" So far the impugned order dated 05.10.2010 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that evidence in the matter having not been led, there was no occasion for the election-petitioner to move an application under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC and for the Trial Court to pass the order of the nature it has been passed wherein the Trial Court has made the observations as if it would be proceeding to examine the ballot papers and the record at this stage.
The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fulena Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar Sinha & Ors.: AIR 2009 SC 2247. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the order impugned with the submissions that in view of the stand of the parties, there has been an obvious incongruity in the number of ballot papers available in the original counting and in the re-count; and as per the submissions, as many as 50 additional votes have been counted in the re-counting; and such availability of additional votes does not even tally with the final count of votes cast but then, this Court is of opinion that these submissions do not require much dilatation herein. For the present purpose, suffice is to observe that admittedly, the evidence is yet to be led in the Trial Court in the election petition; and the Trial Court is yet to reach to the particular conclusion on the stand of the rival parties in relation to number of votes and other 3 related aspects.
Without reaching to such necessary conclusion in CWP No.9923/2010 Sugani Devi Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Anr. accordance with law, the Trial Court was not justified in making the observations in its impugned order dated 05.10.2010 as passed on the application under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC. Though the learned Trial Court has not specifically said so in the order impugned that it would proceed with examination of the ballot papers too but the learned counsel for the respondent frankly submitted that in case of any doubt in that regard, he would specifically submit that the ballot papers may not be opened and examined before the relevant stage. The stand appears to be reasonable; and in the interest of justice it does appear appropriate to observe that it shall be expected of the learned Trial Court to deal with the record and ballot papers strictly in accordance with law and not to open the ballot papers before arriving at the necessary conclusion in that regard at the appropriate stage and in accordance with law.
Operative part
The other part of the impugned order whereby record has been called by the Trial Court does not appear operating against interest of justice and does not call for interference. It goes without saying that this record is also to be dealt with in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 05.10.2010 shall, therefore, be read as modified to the extent indicated above. This writ petition is partly allowed only to the extent indicated above. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This writ petition is partly allowed only to the extent indicated
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XIII r. 10.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 21 Oct 2011. The bench was DINESH MAHESHWARI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.