RAMDHAN MEENA Vs. BHAJANLAL MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner-non applicant Returned Candidate (hereinafter 'the RC') challenging the order dated 15-5-2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dausa, whereby the election petitioner-respondent-applicant's (hereinafter 'the EP') application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC has been allowed and one Ramavtar Kumawat, Sub Divisional Officer, who conducted the enquiry with regard to RC's qualifications summoned.

(2.) Heard counsel and perused the impugned order dated 15-5-2017 passed by the trial court.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the RC and perused the impugned order passed by the trial court, I am of the considered view that the application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC has been allowed by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion on an objective consideration of the facts of the case. No prejudice has been caused to the RC from summoning the witness Ramavtar Kumawat, as he would have a chance to cross examine him. In the facts of the case the discretion exercised by the trial court cannot be said to have been unlawfully exercised. In the circumstances, I cannot find any perversity therewith to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.