SANTILATA DEI Vs. SUMITRA MAHAKUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 21.09.2012 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasapalla (for short, "Election Tribunal") in I.A. No.6 of 2012 arising out of Election Dispute Case No.2 of 2012 rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner, who is the returned candidate and opposite party in the election petition for grant of leave to deliver interrogatories.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case in a nut-shell is that she along with opposite party who was the election petitioner were contesting in the election for the office of Sarpanch, Rasanga Grama Panchayat. In the said election, the petitioner having polled majority of valid votes was declared elected. The election of the writ petitioner has been challenged by the opposite party on the ground of disqualification with the averments that the writ petitioner has begotten 3rd child after the cut off date. The writ petitioner entered her appearance by filing her show cause. Before commencement of trial of the election dispute, the writ petitioner filed application seeking grant of leave to deliver interrogatories on certain aspects pleaded by opposite party-election petitioner in the election petition. The said application, which was registered as I.A.No.6 of 2012, under Annexure-4, at its foot contains specific questionnaires to be answered by opposite party. However, the Election Tribunal rejected the said petition by passing the impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) MR . D.P. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner (opposite party herein) submitted that the writ petitioner filed her show cause on 07.05.2012, where she has tried to explain that she is not coming under the mischief of Section 25(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act for the reasons assigned in the show cause reply with regard to birth of 3rd child. Much after filing of show cause only in the month of September 2012, an application was filed under Order 11, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of leave to deliver interrogatories. On a plain reading of the petition filed under Annexure-4, i.e., interrogatories vis-a-vis the election petition under Annexure-2 and the show cause reply under Annexure-3, it reveals that the petition filed by the writ petitioner has got no sanctity and has been filed only with an intention to delay the proceeding. It is further submitted that the note appended to the petition filed under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC clearly shows that the interrogatories have got no relevancy for just decision of the case. Nothing has been averred in the show cause reply with regard to the questions to be put in the interrogatories as the same has got no relevant points to decide the election petition. Placing reliance on the proviso to Rule 1, Order 11, C.P.C., it is submitted that the intention of the writ petitioner is only to delay the proceeding which has been fortified as nothing has been put to the present opposite party when she was examined and cross-examined by the learned Election Tribunal on 22.09.2012. In the Trial Court, not a single question appended in the note under Annexure-3 has been put to her. A bare reading of the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal would reveal that the tenor of the order though is clear in the line of judicial pronouncement and the statute, yet some observations made by him to reach the finding seem to be improper, or not necessary to reach the conclusion that the interrogatories filed by the present petitioner have got no relevance to reach at the just decision of the case. Concluding his argument, Mr. Dhal prays for dismissal of the writ petition.