LEKHRAM SAHU Vs. SAROJ PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A.No. 17 of 2023 which is an application for issuance of commission under Order 26 Rule 1 and 2 for recording of the statement of witness No.1 alternatively it has also been prayed for recording of the evidence through video conferencing.

(2.) By this application, the election petitioner has prayed for examination of witness through commission contending that the witness has fled an afdavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure before this court and the witness has also appeared more than once for the cross examination, but the cross examination could not take place. Thereafter, the witness has developed some serious illness because of which acute pain is persisting in his face, as a result of which he is unable to travel and physically appear before this Court for remaining cross examination, therefore, in such a situation, he has fled an application under Rule 26 Rule 1 and 2 for commission to examine the witness.

(3.) Learned counsel for the election petitioner would submit that the election petition is being governed by the CPC for the procedural aspect and recording the statement through commission, in the special circumstances of illness and also considering the fact that Representation of People Act, 1951 provides for disposal of the Election Petition in six months, he would pray for allowing this application. To substantiate his submission he would refer to Sec. 87 of the RP Act, 1951 and the judgment passed by the Delhi Court in Election Petition No. 14/2009 {Nandram Bagri vs Jaim Kishan and Others) would pray for examination of his witness through commission. Alternatively, he has also prayed for examination of witness through video conferencing.