SRI GADAM ETE Vs. DUTER PADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. S. Dey, learned Counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Counsel, appearing for and on behalf of the Respondent.

(2.) Applicant is the returned candidate. He files this application seeking leave of this Court to file the list of witnesses after completion of examination of witnesses of the election Petitioner so as to ensure that his witnesses can not be influenced in any manner "by the election Petitioner and also to avoid submission of irrelevant witnesses". This prayer has seriously been objected to by the Respondent/election Petitioner by filing an affidavit-in-opposition saying, amongst other, that such prayer of the applicant is not only wholly misconceived but also in direct conflict with the provisions of law.

(3.) Mr. Dey, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the party can submit the list of witnesses at a later stage and it is not mandatory that it should be submitted before 15 days after the date on which the issues are settled. In other words, he contends that the parties are not mandatorily required to submit the list of witnesses within 15 days from the date of settlement of issues by the Court. Countering his submissions, Mr. Ete, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent/election Petitioner submits that the parties are compulsorily required to furnish the list of witnesses before 15 days of the settlement of issues and under no circumstances, the applicant/returned candidate could be permitted to file his list of witnesses after examination of the witnesses of the Respondent/election Petitioner. Moreover, he submits that filing of the list of witnesses cannot be deferred to on the assumed ground that the applicant's witnesses could be influenced. He has also gone to the extent that if either of the parties fails to present their list of witnesses on the date fixed by the Court after the settlement of the issued, then, the consequence under the law would automatically follow and the defaulting party would not be eligible either to call in such witnesses nor ask for production of documents on which the party wants to rely upon through such witnesses.