KHWAIRAKPAM LOKEN SINGH Vs. RAJKUMAR IMO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.C Borbora, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, Advocate and Shri S. Lokhendro, Advocate appearing for the applicant/ petitioner and Shri H.S. Paonam, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri N. Bipin, Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1.

(2.) The instant application has been filed by the applicant/ petitioner praying for calling the documents mentioned in Schedule-I & II annexed thereto from the respective authorities indicated in the schedule and on receipt of the documents, to take certified copies thereof. The grounds on which the application has been filed, are inter-alia that for the trial of the election petition, it is necessary to call for the documents mentioned in the schedule annexed thereto; that these documents would be required for the purpose of adjudication of the case; that the documents which are to be called for, have been mentioned in the election petition and specific averments have been made in respect thereof in para 35 of the petition and that the certified copies of the documents are necessary to effectively prove his case.

(3.) At the time of hearing, it has been contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/ petitioner, Shri A.C Borbora that this Court has the power to call for all these documents under Sec. 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the RP Act, 1951") read with Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC. While moving such an application, it is not necessary that the provision under which it has been filed, shall be mentioned and even the wrong quoting of any provision does not debar the court from exercising its power. Combating the aforesaid contentions and in addition to what has been stated in the written objection, Shri H.S. Paonam, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that there is no provision under the RP Act for filing such an application nor can the provisions of CPC be applied in all cases and the application is misconceived because the actions of the Returning Officer shall be deemed to have completed in accordance with law. Although the agents of the applicant/ petitioner were present at the time of counting postal ballot papers, no objection was raised by any of them and therefore, the application is nothing but an attempt to roving and fishing evidence.