VIJAY LAXMI Vs. CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28-7-2012 as also the order dated 7-2-2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dausa (herein after 'the trial court'), where under the petitioner's (herein after 'the returned candidate') defence evidence was closed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that vide order dated 7-7-2012 the returned candidate's defence evidence was closed by the trial court noting the fact that the matter was first listed on 2-2-2012 for defence evidence of the returned candidate. Thereafter adjournments on the askance of the returned candidate for defence evidence on 15-2-2012, 3-3-2012, 23-3-2012 were granted. The matter was again adjourned to 7-4-2012, 13-4-2012, 26-4-2012 and 23-5-2012 for defence evidence. When the defence witnesses were again amiss on 23-5-2012 also a last opportunity was granted to the returned candidate to produce his witnesses on cost of Rs.500/-. The case was adjourned to 30-5-2012. In spite of the last opportunity aforesaid on 30-5-2012, no witness of the returned candidate appeared before the trial court. Yet the case was adjourned to 7-7-2012. Finally the trial court closed the defence evidence of the returned candidate on 7-7-2012 when no witness in defence appeared noting the fact that apart from delaying tactics and lethargy of the returned candidate no good ground had been advanced for not producing her witnesses even on 7-7-2012. It was noted by the trial court that it was dealing with an election petition, which required expeditious disposal and the returned candidate was resorting to delaying tactics. Also on 7-7-2012 an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved by the returned candidate seeking to amend her written statement, which was also dismissed by the trial court on the same day. The matter was fixed for arguments.

(3.) DEALING with the application for recall of the order dated 7-7-2012, the trial court noted the fact that the application was not supported by any proof of illness of the returned candidate on 7-7-2012 disabling her from appearing as a witness in her defence. Further the alleged disability was not brought to the notice of the court on 7-7-2012 either in writing or orally. The trial court observed that apart from the returned candidate, even other defence witnesses were not present on that day. On the basis of over all conduct of the returned candidate during the course of trial, the trial court held that it appeared she was only making efforts to delay the adjudication of the election petition and over 7-8 opportunities were given to the returned candidate for bringing her defence evidence, including one on payment of cost, yet the returned candidate failed to bring her defence evidence. The trial court further observed that even on 28-7-2012, when the matter was heard on the application for recall of the order dated 7-7-2012 the returned candidate was absent. Consequently noting the chronology of events in the course of proceedings in the election petition indicative of a determined effort of the returned candidate to delay the adjudication of election petition, the trial court dismissed the application for recall of the order dated 7-7-2012 with a cost of Rs.200/-.