PATEL AHMED MOHAMMAD Vs. BALWANTSINH RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application containing absolutely incongruous and inconsistent averments has been filed by the applicant (original respondent No.1 - Returned Candidate) in the midst of the trial, when the evidence of the election petitioner has already been concluded after examining 21 witnesses, and when the oral evidence of the applicant himself was being recorded, seeking following prayers with regard to the copy of the Election Petition - Exh.50 (though mentioned as Tentative Exh.50 in the application, now the final Exh.50 has been given), which according to the applicant was actually served to him on 7.9.2017 along with the summons of the High Court at Exh.49:-

(2.) The application has been resisted by the opponent No.1 (Original Election Petitioner) by filing the affidavit-in-reply.

(3.) The Court has heard the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.B. B. Naik for the applicant and the learned Advocate Mr.Devang Vyas for the opponent No.1 and gone through the record of the case.