KAJOD MAL YADAV Vs. THE CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order 09.11.2013, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. D.), Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the defendant -petitioner's (hereinafter 'the defendant') application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been dismissed. Heard the counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order dt. 09.11.2013, passed by the trial Court.

(2.) THE learned trial Court has rejected the defendant's application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for calling of Dinesh Panwar, ACEM as defence witness on the count that there was nothing on record to establish with any iota of possibility that Dinesh Panwar, ACEM, was engaged in the counting process in the election of a Sarpanch under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994'). The learned trial Court also noted that under the Act of 1994 the ACEM had no role whatsoever in the election process and who was, if at all, at the counting avenue only in his capacity as a Government Officer to maintain law and order. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application for calling Dinesh Panwar as defence witness. In my considered view, the order dt. 09.11.2013 is a well considered and reasoned order, vitiated neither by perversity nor misdirection in law. Consequently, the petition is without force and the same is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.