BHURA RAM Vs. ONKAR RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution by one Bhura Ram whose election petition filed under rule 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules 1960 was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge Churu on the ground that it was not presented as required by rule 79, the relevant part of which runs as follows: "who may present election petition - (1) A petition under rule 78 may be presented by an elector or by any candidate at such election or cooption, as the case may be. . . . . . . . . . Explanation II - The petition shall be deemed to have been duly presented if it is delivered by the person making the petition or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition. "

(2.) THE petition was presented by Shri Moti Singh, Advocate, before the learned Senior Civil Judge along with a Vakalatnama signed by Bhura Ram. THE material portion of this Vakalatnama runs as follows: "court of Senior Civil Judge, Churu. Bhura Ram Applicant vs. Onkar Ram Non-applicant. Election Petition. I, Bhura Ram son of Ganpat Ram Jat, resident of Bhojasar Chhota, Tehsil Sardarshahar, appoint Shri Moti Singh Ji, Advocate, Churu, for doing pairvi in the above case and hereby authorise him to do pairvi in court, etc. " It is not quite clear whether the attention of the learned Senior Civil Judge was drawn to the above Vakalatnama as there is no mention of it in his judgment. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the above Vakalatnama constitutes an authority in writing in favour of Shri Moti Singh, advocate, to present the election petition before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Churu. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ashkaran vs. Santokchand (1), In that case the memorandum of a civil appeal was presented in the High Court by an advocate. THE Vakalatnama authorised him to do pairvi in the case. But it was not expressly mentioned that he was authorised to present the memorandum of appeal, It was held that the 'pairvi' included acting and that the advocate who was authorised to act was authorised to present the memorandum of appeal. THE contention that even if pairvi included acting that could only be after the appeal had been presented in court was repelled.