AMANAT Vs. NENU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been submitted against the order dated 25.08.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barmer in Election Petition No.2/2005 refusing the prayer of the petitioner for taking written statement on record belatedly.

(2.) Briefly put, the facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in this writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Barmer in the elections held on 10.02.2005. The respondent No.1 filed an election petition under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 before the District Judge, Balotra challenging the election aforesaid and the election petition was transferred to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barmer and numbered as Civil Misc. Case No.2/2005. The petitioner was served with notice of election petition on 13.04.2005 for appearance on 21.04.2005. However, according to the petitioner, on 21.04.2005 she was at Jodhpur for her husband being seriously ill and the counsel appearing on her behalf sought time for filing `Vakalatnama'. Unfortunately, husband of the petitioner expired on 29.04.2005 and in accordance with customs and religious tenets, it was not possible for her to move out of the house for a period of four months and ten days (Iddat Period) and, therefore, she was unable to meet her counsel though `Vakalatnama' was signed by her.

(3.) An application was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 20.07.2005 for adjournment of the case for filing of written statement to a day after the aforesaid Iddat period; however, the application was opposed by the election petitioner with the submissions that when the petitioner could sign Vakalatnama and relevant papers as Pradhan during the aforesaid condolence period, she could have prepared the written statement and, therefore, right to submit written statement be closed. The learned Civil Judge proceeded to reject the application submitted by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 25.08.2005 on the consideration that the petitioner has continued to actively participate in the work of Panchayat Samiti during this Iddat period and, therefore, it cannot be said that she was unable to move out of the house and it appeared that she did not even follow her personal law and when she had executed so much of the work, then she could have filed the reply. According to the learned Judge, the petitioner had failed to bring about an exceptional case for which the time for filing written statement could be extended.