ABANTI JENA Vs. PRIYAMBADA JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two writ petitions are directed against the two different interlocutory orders passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur in Election Dispute Misc. Case No. 2 of 1997. Both the petitions were heard analogously and this common judgment will abide the result in both the writ petitions.

(2.) In the last Grama Panchayat Election, Smt. Abanti Jena (petitioner in the Election Dispute Misc. Case as well as petitioner in writ application No. 11344/98 and hereinafter described as (petitioner) and opposite party No. 1 Smt. Priyambada Jena (opposite party No. 1 in the Election Dispute Misc. Case and petitioner in C.J.C. No. 12384/98 and hereinafter referred to as the "opposite party") besides opposite party No. 2 Mataji Dei, contested for the office of Sarpanch of Mandari Grama Panchayat under Bari Block in the revenue district of Jaipur. In that election, as stated in the writ petitions opposite party No. 1 was declared elected by securing one vote more than the nearest rival candidate i.e., the petitioner, Petitioner thus filed the above mentioned Election Dispute Misc Case No. 2 of 1997, inter alia, on the ground of improper rejection of votes which should have been counted in her favour and improper admission of votes in favour of opposite party. During the course of hearing of that election dispute the trial Court rejected petitioner's prayer for verification and recounting of ballot papers and that petition was rejected both on merit and also on the ground that similar prayer of the petitioner was rejected on 24-1-1998. That order is subject matter of consideration in O.J.C. No. 11344/98. In that respect petitioner's contention is that verification and recounting of the votes is necessary for a just decision in the case.

(3.) On 27-8-1998 learned Civil Judge allowed petitioner's prayer to mark certain documents as exhibits on the ground that such documents are public documents and due to non examination of the Election Officer as a witness from either side such documents could not be proved at the relevant stage of the proceeding. Documents which are proposed to be admitted in evidence waiving formal proof are result of counting of votes in Forms No. 8(A), ballot paper account in Form No. 7 in respect of Ward Nos. 1 to 12 and the Electoral Rolls used by the Presiding Officer (conducting the election) with respect to Ward Nos. 10, 11 and 12. That order of 27-8-1998 is subject matter of consideration in O.J.C. No. 12394 of 1998. In that respect it was argued that by virtue of order dated 24-1-1998 read with order dated 5-2-1998, learned Civil Judge permitted the petitioners to prove those documents by examining the Election Officer but ultimately vide the impugned order he has allowed those documents to be exhibited on behalf of the petitioner by dispensing with formal proof thereof. Apart from that the opposte party further contends that after closure of the evidence from both the sides induction of such evidence from the side of the petitioner without a chance of rebuttal to her (opposite party) is in gross violation of the procedural law as well as the principle of natural justice.