1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging validity of the order dated 4.3.2013 whereby his application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 (2) CPC in election petition filed by the respondent No.1 was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that election officer was shown as witness in the election petition but not produced before the Court, therefore, for proper adjudication an application was filed under Order 16 Rule 1 (2) CPC for summoning the said witness for the purpose of recording his evidence but trial Court rejected the same vide impugned order, which is not proper in view of the fact that the evidence of the election officer is necessary to adjudicate the controversy.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because the order impugned is justified.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the evidence of the election officer in the election petit