ORDER :

1. Heard on I.A. No. 17 of 2023 which is an application for issuance of commission under Order 26 Rule 1 and 2 for recording of the statement of witness No. 1 alternatively it has also been prayed for recording of the evidence through video conferencing.

2. By this application, the election petitioner has prayed for examination of witness through commission contending that the witness has fled an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure before this court and the witness has also appeared more than once for the cross examination, but the cross examination could not take place. Thereafter, the witness has developed some serious illness because of which acute pain is persisting in his face, as a result of which he is unable to travel and physically appear before this Court for remaining cross examination, therefore, in such a situation, he has fled an application under Rule 26 Rule 1 and 2 for commission to examine the witness.

3. Learned counsel for the election petitioner would submit that the election petition is being governed by the CPC for the procedural aspect and recording the statement through commission, in the special circumstances of illness and also considering the fact that Representation of People Act, 1951 provides for disposal of the Election Petition in six months, he would pray for allowing this application. To substantiate his submission he would refer to Section 87 of the RP Act, 1951 and the judgment passed by the Delhi Court in Election Petition No. 14/2009 [Nandram Bagri vs. Jaim Kishan and Others] would pray for examination of his witness through commission. Alternatively, he has also prayed for examination of witness through video conferencing.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 opposing the submissions would submit that procedure for trial of CPC does not applicable to the election petition in its entirety. He would further submit that applicability of the provisions of CPC is subject to the provision of this Act and any of the Rules made thereunder. He would further submit that under the Representation of People Act, 1951 there is no rule which provides that the petitioner can be examined through commission or through video conferencing. He would further submit that taking evidence through video conferencing is also not technically possible because the entire petition of the petitioner is based on documentary evidence and the petitioner has fled a huge number of documents and got exhibited the same and at the time of cross examination the respondent’s Advocate is required to show the documents to confront the same to the petitioner and therefore, only because of this reason document cannot be shown through the camera proceeding because it is very difficult for the respondent’s Advocate to show huge bulk of documents in front of camera and then cross examine the witness and it would not be proper to allow the application, thus prayed for dismissal of the application. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash vs. Nanku, 2005 (4) SCC 480.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant provisions.

6. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, this court has to be examined what are the rules framed under the Election Petition as per the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules 2007.

7. Rule 308 of the High Court of CG Rules 2007 specifically provides that no commission for the examination of any witness will be issued unless the Judge considers it absolutely necessary and the party at whose instance such commission is to be issued has deposited with the Cashier of the court, within such time as may be fixed, such sum as the court may consider reasonable for the purpose.

8. Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 also deals with the applicability of the provisions of the CPC which reads as under: