1. The petitioner, who is returning candidate, has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 11.1.2018 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur in Election Petition No. 01/2015 allowing the interim application filed by the respondent under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for the payment of cost of Rs. 500/- directing to issue summons to the concerned Grama Panchayath of Kuppalli to produce the ballot box pertaining to the election for recounting the votes taken by the petitioner and respondent including the postal votes.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an elected Member of Gram Panchayath of Kuppahalli Village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk. The respondent is the candidate who has lost the election to the petitioner by one vote. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed the election petition under Section 15(1) and Section 19 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 read with Rule 74(ii)(c) of Karnataka Panchayat Rules. The present petitioner, who is the 1st respondent before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Chickballapur filed objections resisting the election petition.

3. When the matter was posted for evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to summon ballot box pertaining to the Grama Panchayathi election of Kuppahalli Grama Panchayath for recounting the votes taken by the petitioner and respondents including the postal votes. The said application was resisted by the petitioner by filing objections contending that the Election Authority has rightly conducted the election and have not heard any single fault alleged by the petitioner/ respondent herein. Inspite of the same, the petitioner/respondent herein has filed the election petition just to harass the returning candidate/petitioner and hence the election petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned Civil Judge considering the application and objections, by the impugned order dated 11th January, 2018 allowed the application and directed to issue summons to the concerned Grama Panchayath of Kuppalli to produce the ballot box pertaining to the election held in their Grama Panchayathi for recounting the votes taken by the petitioner and respondents including the postal votes. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

6. Sri CR Gopalasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the very application filed under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC praying to summon the ballot box pertaining to the Grama Panchayathi is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. The said provision is only to summon the records from the Courts and not from the authorities. The learned Civil Judge cannot summon the ballot box pertaining to the Grama Panchayathi even at the stage where the evidence is yet to commence. He further contended that the validity of declaration of the petitioner as Returning candidate can be decided after complete adjudication of the matter between the parties. If the ballot box secured by the Court is ordered for recounting, the very purpose for which election petition filed will be defeated. He sought to quash the impugned order by allowing the writ petition.

7. Per contra, Sri M Veerabhadraiah, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge and contended that the learned Civil Judge has exercised the inherent power under Section 151 of CPC. Therefore, the technicality of the procedure followed by the learned Civil Judge cannot be a ground to quash the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge. He further contended that mere summoning of the ballot box pertaining to the Grama Panchayathi Election of Kuppahalli Grama Panchayath for recounting the votes including the postal votes will not prejudice the case of the petitioner. He furthe