THIPPERUDRAPPA Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri T.M. Nadaf, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri A.G. Maladar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 5. Notice to other respondents are not issued, since on a short point this writ petition is being dismissed for following reasons. Petitioner herein has filed an election petition in E.P. No. 1 of 2013 for declaring the election of 7th respondent namely returned candidate from 17th Ward, Bellary City Municipal Corporation as void in the elections held on 7-3-2013 and the results declared on 11-3-2013, contending inter alia that there was improper receipt of nomination paper. To prove the contents of election petition, apart from petitioner getting himself examined, he had also summoned witness namely Assistant Registration Officer who is said to have prepared the Voters list which is the subject-matter of dispute now pending consideration by Civil Court. Said witness examined as P.W. 2 was treated hostile and petitioner's Counsel was permitted to cross-examine P.W. 2. Accordingly, he has been cross-examined. He has stated in his cross-examination that he gave the entire file to the learned Advocate (who was cross-examining him) when he came to his office. In his cross-examination dated 11-12-2013, he has stated to the following effect:

(2.) In order to disprove said evidence of P.W. 2, an application under Order 16, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was filed vide Annexure-D before Civil Court seeking for issuance of summons to witness-P.W. 2 to produce the documents mentioned in the said application. In the affidavit supporting said application, it has been contended by petitioner that said documents are necessary for further proceeding of the case vide paragraph 4 of the affidavit. Court below noticed that P.W. 2 in witness-box had specifically pointed out to learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that he had come to office of P.W. 2 for getting information under RTA and he (P.W. 2) had handed over the entire file and also furnished the copies of documents specifically sought for by Advocate. He (P.W. 2) has also stated that these documents were given at the request of petitioner's Counsel. In the witness-box P.W. 2 has pointed to learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner stating that said Advocate had come to his office. As such, Trial Court held that learned Advocate being a witness to the incident, it would be inappropriate for him to continue his vakalathnama. Hence, before terminating vakalathnama of petitioner's Counsel, a pointed question was put to the learned Advocate himself who was present in the Court, as to whether he intends to disprove the evidence of P.W. 2 and the answer given by learned Counsel was in the affirmative. This would only go to show that learned Advocate was a witness to the incident prima facie or in other words, he intended to prove that statement made by witness-P.W. 2 pointing that learned Counsel for petitioner had not been handed over the file or in other words statement of P.W. 2 is false. In this situation, he would become a witness to the incident as rightly pointed out by learned Trial Judge and to maintain purity in the stream of administration of justice, Trial Court has terminated the vakalathnama of learned Advocate by the impugned order dated 29-1-2014 vide Annexure-F. There is no infirmity whatsoever in the said order calling for interference by this Court and said order is hereby affirmed.