(1.) IN this interlocutory application the election petitioner has prayed for grant of permission to produce Shri Lalaram Ahirwar, Shri Tulasiya Dheemar, Shri Ganesh Chourasiya, Shri Pannalal Pradhan and Shri Amitabh Jain as additional witnesses before this Court.
(2.) IT is pertinent to state here, it has been mentioned in the petition that on behalf of the election petitioner before filing of this application another application had been filed for adducing additional evidence, but the said application did not meet with success and met the fate of dismissal on the ground that nothing was stated in the application on what issues examination of the said witnesses was warranted. It is averred in the petition that in the present election petition no witnesses have been examined but hearing of this petition continued along with Election Petition No. 45/1999 and the evidence recorded therein was to be read in this case. It is urged that as an actual fact on behalf of this election petitioner no questions were asked to the witnesses but the counsel appearing for the petitioner accepted the evidence recorded in the Election Petition No. 45/1999 to be sufficient in the present case. It is contended that in this election petition there was an allegation that his nominations papers were exchanged for which no questions were put to the Returning Officer. In this factual backdrop the aforesaid witnesses have been sought to be examined by the petitioner.
(3.) A reply has been filed by the respondent No. 1, the returned candidate contending, inter alia, that the application filed by the petitioner is frivolous and is intended to drag the case for political gains. It is putforth that similar types of petitions had been rejected on many an occasion and the petitioner is bent upon not to get the matter finally heard. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had closed his case long back and there is no provision in law to tender additional witnesses after the entire case is closed and fixed for final hearing. It is also setforth that the petitioner is making an endeavour to fill -up the lacunae in his case which is impermissible in law. According to the respondent the case was linked with the case of Akhand Pratap Singh who is the election petitioner in the Election Petition No. 45/1999 and the counsel being one had accepted that evidence would be recorded in one case and be made applicable to another case. It is urged that Shri Amitabh Jain, the Returning Officer had been vigorously cross -examined by both the election petitioners. Assertions made in Paragraph 3 of the pleadings are totally denied. It is putforth that there is total lack of pleading and the petition lacks in material facts and particulars with regard to the role ascribed to the proposed witnesses. Attempt to delay the proceeding at the behest of the petitioner has been seriously commented upon.