LADDURAM KORI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Ladduram Kori, has also filed an Election Petition against the respondent no. 5 which is registered as E.P. No. 8/2019 and by order dtd. 5/9/2022, passed in E.P. No. 8/2019, it was directed that this petition shall be taken up along with E.P. No. 8/2019 for analogous hearing. The said order was affirmed by Supreme Court by order dtd. 14/10/2022 passed in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 18154/2022.

(2.) Thereafter, the recording of evidence started in E.P. No. 8/2019 and on 5/12/2022, an objection was raised by the Counsel for the respondent no. 5, that the Election Petitioner/Petitioner in the present case, cannot give any evidence relating to any material touching the merits of this case, because it may prejudice the mind of this Court.

(3.) Although this Court negatived the submission made by the Counsel for the respondent no. 5 that any evidence given by Election Petitioner would prejudice the mind of the Court, because each and every case is to be decided on the basis of material available in the said case, but even then in order to avoid any confusion in the mind of the respondent no. 5, this Court deferred the recording of Examination-inchief of Election Petitioner. Since, the respondent no. 5 was creating all sorts of hurdle in recording of evidence in respect of the previous conduct of the respondent no. 5, by objecting that the genuineness of Caste Certificate cannot be adjudicated in Election Petition, therefore, this Court was left with no other option, but to take up this case first, because the respondent no. 5 who is a sitting M.L.A. cannot be permitted to hamper the progress in E.P. No. 8/2019 as well as to keep this petition pending. Accordingly by order dtd. 5/12/2022, the recording of evidence of Petitioner in E.P. No.8/2019 was deferred and it was directed that the present case shall be taken up for final hearing at motion stage on 9/12/2022. Accordingly, this case has been heard finally at motion stage. Furthermore, as per the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (Supra) this Petition should have been decided within six months whereas more than 2 years and 09 months have passed from the date of filing of this petition. Therefore, also, it was necessary to decide this petition urgently.