RABINDER SINGH SOHIL Vs. HARNAM DASS JOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Sections 80, 80-A, 81, 98 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenges the election of the returned candidate i.e. the respondent from 58 - Ludhiana West Assembly Constituency to Punjab Legislative Assembly. A prayer has also been made for setting aside and declaring the election of returned candidate as void.

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was issued. The returned candidate - respondent has appeared on numerous dates of hearing. A perusal of the order sheets shows that an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') was also filed by the petitioner which was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs on 19.5.2003. Thereafter, number of adjournments have been sought. On 5.9.2003 one more adjournment was sought to enable the counsel for the petitioner to get instructions from his client and the case was adjourned to 21.11.2003, on which date the Court was not held and the case was adjourned to 5.12.2003. On 5.12.2003 also the case could not be taken up for paucity of time and it was adjourned to 18.12.2003. On the adjourned date, counsel for the petitioner did not appear. However, he appeared on 20.12.2003 when the following order was passed :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has argued that the Code is fully applicable in election matters and, therefore, under Order IX read with Order XVII of the Code, this petition is liable to be dismissed. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera v. P.L. Shanker and others, AIR 1984 SC 135 and argued that in case of non-appearance of the petitioner, the Court is clothed with the power to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution under Order IX read with Order XVII of the Code.