NAIRAJ DEVI Vs. ARUNA KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge by the petitioner-returned candidate (hereinafter 'the RC') are the two orders dated 11-1-2017 and 21- 2-2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2 Ajmer (hereinafter 'the trial court') allowing, by the first the respondent-election petitioner's (hereinafter 'the EP') application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC, and by the second, the EP's application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(2.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

(3.) With regard to EP's application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC, by the impugned order dated 11-1-2017 the trial court trying the election petition laid against the RC has held that the documents prayed to be taken on record by the EP, being the nomination form, declaration in support thereof, mark-sheet and transfer certificate filed by the RC before the Returning Officer were relevant for the just and proper adjudication of the election petition before it. It further held that so also were the documents sought to be taken on record of the trial court by the EP as had been gathered in the criminal investigation by the Investigating Officer in a FIR against the RC which inter alia were the correspondences between the SHO and District Education Officer Jaipur. It was held that the power of the trial court under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC was discretionary in nature to be exercised where facts of the case warranted it to be so for just adjudication of the issue before the trial court and the documents were in any event not in possession of the EP at the time of filing of the election petition. Further they were in part also public documents referable to Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872, taking of which on the court's record would cause no prejudice as the evidentiary value thereof would be assessed by the trial court on probative worth of the evidence of the parties including the cross examination of the EP.