SATISH Vs. IMAMHUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 in the Election Petition 2/2013 is before this Court seeking for quashing of the order dated 21.01.2014 dismissing IA -14 filed by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 before the trial court) under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sri. Deepak S. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Prakash S. Udikeri, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No. 1 and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 7. Notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 6 dispensed with since they are not either aggrieved by the impugned order or they would be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever by any order that would be passed by this Court in the present writ petition.

(3.) FIRST respondent herein filed an Election Petition in E.P.2/2013 under Section 33 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, contending inter alia that result declaring writ petitioner herein as successful returned candidate for the seat of the councillor to Corporation of City of Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation, Ward No. 38, reserved for Backward Class -A category be declared as null and void since he does not belong to Backward Class -A category. The said election petition came to be resisted by petitioner herein by filing a detailed statement of objections and it is being contested. Parties have tendered their evidence. An application IA -12 came to be filed for production of documents as per the list appended to the said application which is at Annexure -F and said application came to be allowed by the trial court by order dated 13.01.2014 on payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. IA -13 had been filed seeking a direction to the State of Karnataka/respondent No. 7 herein to produce the documents pertaining to nomination of writ petitioner which came to be rejected on the ground that these documents are public documents and as such, writ petitioner can obtain certified copies of these documents and produce the same. Writ petitioner obtained certified copies of these documents and filed an application -I.A. No. 14 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for recall of R.W. -1 (writ petitioner) to lead further evidence which application came to be resisted by the 1st respondent herein and trial court by the impugned order dismissed the said application on the ground that election dispute has to be disposed of within a period of six months as contemplated under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. In so far as the reason given by the Election Tribunal that election dispute is to be resolved or disposed of within six months as contemplated under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 there cannot be any dispute with regard to the said finding. However, trial court having allowed the application I.A. No. 12 filed by the writ petitioner i.e., 1st respondent before the trial court for production of documents, in the interest of justice, it ought to have allowed respondent No. 1 therein to mark those documents in evidence subject to admissibility and to avoid any further multiplication of litigation in this regard at a later stage.