Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 9.9.16 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadra in Election Petition No. 1/15, allowing an application preferred by the respondent, the election petitioner, under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC.

2. The facts relevant are that the respondent filed an Election Petition before the District Judge, Hanumangarh, under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, questioning the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Mahrana, on the ground that at the time of filing the nomination form the certificate of passing Standard 8th, filed by her is a forged document and thus, on account of lacking in minimum educational qualification prescribed, she was not eligible to contest the election. The Election Petition is being contested by the petitioner herein, by filing a reply thereto. During the pendency of the Election Petition, the election petitioner preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, for taking certified copy of the charge-sheet filed by the police before the criminal court of competent jurisdiction against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC and some seizure memos, on record. The application was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that the documents sought to be produced are not relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved and in absence of any explanation regarding delay in producing the documents, the same cannot be taken on record.

3. After due consideration, the application has been allowed by the Election Tribunal. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Election Petition must be determined on its own, keeping in view the evidence which has been brought on record before the Election Tribunal and not on the basis of evidence collected in the criminal proceedings and thus, the order impugned passed by the Election Tribunal permitting the documents to be taken on record, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court dated 17.9.14 passed in 'Ramswaroop v. Ram Chandra and Ors.' (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8527/12). Learned counsel submitted that in absence of the explanation regarding the delay in production of documents, the application preferred was liable to be rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the Election Tribunal has proceeded to take the documents on record without examining the relevancy thereof to the controversy involved in the Election Petition and thus, the order impugned is liable to be set aside for this reason also.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that on account of forged and fabricated certificate being produced, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner wherein after due investigation the police found the certificate to be forged and thus, the charge-sheet filed therein and the seizure memos prepared during the investigation are certainly documents relevant to the controversy involved and thus, the Election Tribunal has committed no error in permitting the documents to be taken on record. Learned counsel submitted that the charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed by the police on 16.10.15, whereas the Election Petition was filed by the respondent on 12.2.15 and thus, obviously the documents which have come into existence after filing of the Election Petition could not have been filed by the respondent earlier and thus, the objection regarding the delayed production of the documents raised by the petitioner is absolutely devoid of any merit. Learned counsel submitted that under Order 7, Rule 14 (3), with the leave of the court, the documents can be filed at any stage. Learned counsel submitted that the documents produced have already been exhibited in the evidence and the petitioner had never raised any objection regarding the s