NARPAT RAM BARWAR Vs. SHRI MOHAN MEGHWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the two applications moved on behalf of the petitioner one under Order 14, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure by which a prayer has been made that issue No. 1, which is a pure question of law, may be decided as a preliminary issue without going into the other issues, the second is an oral application made on 22.12.94 and it was prayed that the admission or denial of the documents which have been received by the Court in a sealed cover from the Office of the District Returning Officer, Jodhpur, may be got done and the third application has been moved on behalf of the respondent No. 1 on 7.12.94 for condonation of the delay in filing the list of witnesses.

(2.) The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of these applications, in brief, are that petitioner Narpat Ram Barwar, in this election petition, called in question the election of Shri Mohan Meghwal to the Tenth Legislative Assembly of the State of Rajasthan from the Soorsagar Constituency (No. 185) of the Rajasthan State Assembly. The election of Shri Mohan Meghwal has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that (i) the nomination paper of Shri Mohan Meghwal was improperly accepted; (ii) he has adopted corrupt practice in the election; and (iii) he has not complied with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

(3.) Certain preliminary objections were raised by the respondent to the maintainability of the election petition, which were decided by this Court by the order dated 5th July, 1994. The preliminary objections were over-ruled and the respondents were directed to file reply to the election petition. Reply to the election petition was filed by the respondents and the case was fixed for settlement of the issues on 19.10.94. On 19.10.94, the petitioner moved an application for summoning certain documents from the District Election Officer/District Returning Officer. Respondent No. 1, also moved an application for summoning certain documents. Both these applications were allowed as they were not opposed and the District Election Officer/District Returning Officer (Collector, Jodhpur) was directed to send the documents mentioned in the application. The documents, called from the Collector, were received by this Court on 17.11.94. Item No.5, mentioned in the application, was not received due to wrong particulars given in the order/letter and, therefore, Shri Mala Ram, L.D.C. in the Office of the Collector, Jodhpur, who was present in the Court, was directed to send the required record forthwith. The admission and denial of the documents was made on 17.11.1994 and four issues were struck out. At that time, the documents were received from the Office of the District Election Officer (Collector, Jodhpura) which were in the sealed cover but admission and denial on these documents were not made. The parties were directed to file list of the witnesses within two weeks and the case was fixed on 7.12.94. On 6.12.94, learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application under Order 14, Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure for deciding issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue. On 7.12.94, respondent No.1 filed the list of the witnesses and, also, moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the list of the witnesses. Both these applications were opposed and arguments were heard on both these applications on 22.12.94. During the course and arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral submission that the copy of the Caste Certificate, which was filed alongwith the nomination paper and which has been received in the sealed cover, may be opened and admission or denial of that document may be got done. This oral request of the petitioner was objected by the learned counsel for the respondents and he prayed time for filing reply. The time was granted. Respondent No.1 filed reply to the oral applications. The is how these three applications came up for consideration before this Court.