ONKAR SINGH Vs. ANGREZ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed election petition challenging election of respondent No. 3 Kharaiti Lal from Shahabad Assembly Constituency in the State of Haryana. After service on the respondents was completed written statement was filed by the contesting respondent No. 3. On the pleadings a preliminary issue was framed on March 18, 1992 as under:-"whether election petition discloses any cause of action?" Counsel for both the parties stated that no evidence was to be led on the preliminary issue, stated above, and thus the case was adjourned to April 3,1992 for arguments. The case was taken up on April 6, 1992 and was adjourned to April 24,1992 for arguments on the preliminary issue. Parties counsel or their Clerks noted down the date of hearing fixed which is shown from the endorsement on the margin of the order aforesaid. Nobody appeared on April 24, 1992 and hence the election petition was dismissed.

(2.) CIVIL Misc. Application No. 15-E of 1992 was filed on behalf of the petitioner for restoration of the election petition, It was stated in this application that since the lawyers were on strike the case aforesaid could not be attended and thus absence was not intentional but bona fide due to the reasons aforesaid. It is further mentioned that the petitioner was also informed but he could not be made available at this short time and thus on the date fixed the case could not be attended by the petitioner or his counsel due to the reasons aforesaid. In support of the allegation mentioned in the application, no affidavit or affidavits of the persons con- cerned were attached. An opportunity was allowed vide order dated May 15, 1992 to the petitioner to file necessary affidavit/affidavits. Subsequently, an affidavit of the petitioner Onkar Singh dated July 22, 1992 was filed. The case was taken up on July 24, 1992. Since the allegation made in para 4 of the petition was vague, the petitioner was called upon to file better affidavit. Subsequently the petitioner filed affidavit dated August 6,1992 arid arguments were heard from the counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) IT was stated by the petitioner in para 4 of the affidavit dated July 22, 1992, that he was informed but he could not be available at this short time. In the affidavit dated August 6,1992, Onkar Singh petitioner clarified that he was out of station since April 18, 1992 in connection with his party work and came back on April 25,1992. He further stated that he was informed but he could not be available at this short time and thus the case, in which the date was fixed, could not be attended by him or by his counsel due to the above reasons. It is in this state of affairs that the question for consideration is as to whether sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for his non-appearance on the date fixed. If it is held in the affirmative then the application for restoration deserves to be allowed.