KALANDI MALLIK Vs. SRICHARAN SETHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate appears for opposite parties 2 and 3 -Copy of the writ petition has been received by him. Opposite party No.1, appears through counsel and states that Vakalatnama has already been filed. That Vakalatnama be tagged or record. On consent of the parties, the writ petition is heard and disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) THE writ petitioner, i.e., elected Sarpanch and the opposite party No.1 are respectively Opp.party No.3 and petitioner in Election Misc. Case No.7 of 2007 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior, Division), Kendrapara. Opp. party No.1 filed that election petition, inter alia, on the ground that the elected Sarapanch (writ petitioner) had more than two children after the cut off date as provided in Sub -section (1)(v) of Section 25 of the Orisa Gram Panchayat. Act., 1964 (in short the 'Act). It is stated at the Bar and also available from the election petition, Annexure -1, that in paragraphs - 6 and 7 of the election petition, Opposite party No.1 states that petitioner has four children and the last child was born on 12.4.1998, i.e., after the prescribed cut off date. After filing of the show -cause by the petitioner in the Election Misc. Case, opposite party No.1 filed application for amendment station that in fact the petitioner begot two children after the cut off date, i.e., on 12.4.1998 and 12.7.1999 and therefore petitioner has five children and not four children. Accordingly he sought for amendment and that was considered and allowed by learned Civil Judge as per the impugned order passed on 13.7.2007.

(3.) THE fact and the ratio involved in the case of Muni Lal are completely different and therefore not found relevant. Be that as it may, the question of limitation as it occurred in that case has not occurred in the same manner so far as the present case is concerned.