GHISYA Vs. M J M KARAULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer that order dated July 6, 1990 (Anx. l), passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, (Election Tribunal), Karauli, may be quashed and the petitioner's application for filing documents may be allowed.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed an election petition under Rule 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (for brevity, 'the Rules, 1960'), against respondent No. 2, which is pending in the Court of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate (Election Tribunal), Karauli. Election for the Office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gairiee was held on June 5, 1988. THE petitioner and respondent No. 2 both contested the same. In all, 2090 votes were cast, out of which, the petitioner got 379 and respondent No. 2 received 380 votes. 159 votes were cancelled. Thus, the non-petitioner No. 2 was declared elected by a margin of one vote.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Mool Chand Sharma v. Hari Shanker Sharma. (4), in which, late production of documents under O. XIII, r. 2, C. P. C. was not allowed on the ground that the documents were produced at a late stage and were not beyond suspicion. In Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (5), a revision was filed against the order passed under O. XIII, r. 2, C. P. C. THE preliminary objection was raised against the maintainability of revision petition and while interpreting Section 115, C. P. C. it was held that the order of the trial court should not be interfered, merely on account of the fact that the decision is erroneous in fact or in law and that none of the documents were going to affect the ultimate decision of the case, in which it has been filed. It was further observed that material irregularity means committing some error of procedure in course of trial, which is material in that, it may have affected the ultimate decision itself. THEse authorities are evidently of no help to the non-petitioners. In Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General (6), it was observed by the Apex Court that a writ of certiorari cannot be granted to quash the decision of an inferior court within its jurisdiction unless it is shown that the order passed is without jurisdiction or in excess of it or in violation of the principles of natural justice. THE observations of the Apex Court are applicable to the circumstances of the present petition. This is a matter, in which certified copies of public documents are denied to be produced, merely on the ground of delay, which will cause failure of justice and will violate the principles of natural justice also. Parties approach the Court to get substantial justice and justice should not be denied to them, merely on the ground of procedural technicalities,which, in fact, deny the justice THE petitioner has also explained the reason for filing the documents late. documents are beyond suspicion and require no evidence to be recorded. respondent No. 2 can be compensated by way of Cost, since the documents are filed late.