RAJNEESH MISHRA Vs. LALITA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A.No.1161/2016

(2.) It has been submitted hereby that the petitioner has already examined listed witnesses. However, in order to unearth the truth regarding illegal and corrupt practices committed by the elected candidate (respondent No.1), it is necessary to examine two more witnesses namely Vinod Mishra and Ankur Yadav. It has been submitted that Vinod Mishra had applied under the Right To Information Act, to the authorities in Regional Transport Office and was informed that a sum of Rs.5,51,480/- is recoverable from Shri Hari Prakash Yadav, husband of the respondent No.1, by way of arrears of tax upon the vehicle owned by him. This fact had not been disclosed by the petitioner in her affidavit filed along with her nomination papers. The second proposed witness Ankur Yadav is the Bureau Chief of "Raj Express" newspaper published from Chhattarpur. His testimony is necessary to throw light on the newspaper clippings which have been filed by the election petitioner along with election petition as annexures from P-3 to P-5. It has been stated on behalf of the election petitioner that earlier aforesaid two witnesses were reluctant to depose; therefore, their names were not included in the list of witnesses furnished by the election petitioner after framing of issues. Now, the aforesaid two witnesses have agreed to depose in the Court and disclose what they know about the conduct of the election petitioner. Therefore, it has been prayed that permission be granted to summon aforesaid two witnesses.

(3.) Respondent No.1 (the elected candidate) has opposed the application by filing a written reply. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent No.1 that this interlocutory application for summoning unlisted witnesses has been filed at a belated stage, after the testimony of all listed witnesses is already over. It has been filed in order to keep the election petition pending and to harass and defame a duly elected representative of the people. No cogent reason has been assigned as to why aforesaid two witnesses were not included in the list of witnesses filed on the settling date. As such, requirements of Order 16 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. has not been fulfilled. It has also not been explained as to how the statements of aforesaid two witnesses would be material for decision of the election petition; therefore, it has been prayed that the application be dismissed.