The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court's decision to permit the plaintiff to summon witnesses after the judgment was reserved was not a proper exercise of jurisdiction.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2012 (Annex.P/1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Udaipur while trying the election petition filed by the respondent in respect of of Municipal Council election of the petitioner, has reopened the trial and issued summons for examination of four witnesses, after the judgment/order was reserved. The first para of the order itself indicates it. The order permits the plaintiff-respondent to further adduce evidence for summoning the witnesses in support of his case. Being aggrieved by that, the defendant-petitioner, who is the elected candidate, has approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the evidence was over of the plaintiff-respondent on 04.08.2011 and all the relevant documents were produced by the respondent, the defendant also adduced evidence and thereafter, after hearing the arguments, the order on the election petition was reserved, however, at the fag end of the trial, at this stage, at the request of the plaintiff-respondent, the learned trial court below has reopened the evidence and summoned the witnesses, including the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Kanore, District: Udaipur and the Headmistress of the Government school etc. He, therefore, submitted that this is not permissible and the impugned order dated 17.12.2012 deserved to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Dungawat, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M. Seshadri v. G. Vasantha Pai & Ors. reported in AIR 1969 SC 692 in a matter under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and submitted that the Election Tribunal has the power under Order 16, Rule 14 CPC to suo motu summon the court witnesses at any stage; and therefore, the impugned order is just and proper, does not require any interference.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no reasons have been assigned by the learned trial court in the impugned order 17.12.2012 for summoning the witnesses after the order was reserved. The relevant documents and evidence were already produced by both the parties and, therefore, in support of documents already produced by the plaintiff-respondent, further witnesses were sought to summoned by the impugned order at the fag end of the trial virtually reopening it. This cannot be said to a proper exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the learned trial court. The impugned order dated 17.12.2012, therefore, deserves to be set aside. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is entirely on different facts and under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

6. Consequently, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner-defendant deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 17.12.2012 of the learned trial court, is set aside. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned trial court below forthwith.Petition Allowed.

*******