KRISHNA NAND TRIPATHI Vs. ALOK CHAURASIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A No.3778 of 2016 The present interlocutory application has been filed for permitting the election petitioner to lead his evidence at a later stage. The necessity of filing this application has been arisen, due to the fact that two witnesses on behalf of the election petitioner have already been examined on 29.4.2016. Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been filed on 23.6.2016. Counter affidavit to this interlocutory application has been filed by the sole respondent, wherein it is stated that two witnesses had been examined on 29.4.2016, on which date, the election petitioner was also present in the Court. The election petitioner, however, failed to get his evidence recorded as required under Order XVIII, Rule 3 -A of the C.P.C., and as such, now his evidence should not be recorded.

(2.) Learned counsel for the election petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, which says that the every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, to the trial of suits. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no bar in the C.P.C., to examine the plaintiff at a later stage. Learned counsel submitted that there is no illegality in examining the election petitioner after the examination of two witnesses on his behalf. Learned counsel for the sole respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has placed reliance of the Order XVIII Rule 3 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows :

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the sole respondent that since two witnesses have already been examined in presence of the election petitioner, the election petitioner himself cannot examine as a witness now. It is submitted that if the election petitioner desired to be examined at a later stage, he should have filed the application for the same on the same date, but he did not seek the permission of the Court for his examination at a later stage and allowed the other witnesses to be examined in his presence. Alternatively, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the sole respondent that in any event, the election petitioner should be examined after the examination of all the witnesses.