1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Letters Patent is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge of this court in Chamber on 26th of August, 1997, the said order has permitted the Respondent No. 1 to the-additional written statement, with a prayer to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that Election Petition No. 4 of 1996 titled "Ram Saroop Vs Returning Officer and others, is pending trial under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957 (here in after referred to as the Act), wherein election of the appellant has been questioned on a number of grounds. After the filling of written statement by the appellant to the said election petition vide order dated 22-05-1997 on an oral request having been made on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 petitioner in the Election Petition; he was permitted to file replica to the written statement of defendants 1 to 3 therein. This prayer was granted and three weeks time was allowed for doing the needful with the condition for the respondent.

3. Record of the case further shows that when the case up for hearing on 25.6.1997 when it transpired that additional written statement as ordered on 22-05-1997 had not been filed.

4. In the aforesaid back ground, an objection was raised on behalf of the appellant that additional written statement could not be filled suo-moto, but prior leave of the Court had to be sought. Accordingly, counsel for the respondent No. 1 was directed by the learned Single Judge to file an application on such an objection having been raised. When application was filed, it was objected to on behalf of the appellant. (Respondent No. 3 is the present appellant and is also the Returned Candidate, whose election is questioned in Election Petitioner No. 4 of 1996). Learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has negatived the objection filed on behalf of the appellant. Hence, this appeal.

5. When this case was taken up for hearing, a serious objection was raised on behalf of Respondent No. 1 regarding the maintainability of the present appeal, as according to him, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and in-competent. It was further urged Mr. Kohli, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 that the present appeal is another step-ub-ail on the part of the Respondent No. 1 to protract the already protracted decision of the election petition. By adopting such tactics, appellant has successfully defeated the provisions of law. This plea on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 was seriously contested by Mr. Salaria, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, he placed relianced on Indian Law Reports (1970) and 2 Madras Seris 183 Kadiravan alias Shamsudeen Vs. R. Thirumalaikumar. On the basis of this JUDGMENT, it was urged by learned Single Judge tantamounts to an order within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court, and, therefore, the plea urged on behalf of the respondent No. 1 was liable to be negatived.

6. So for decision of election dispute are concerned special provision has been enacted for the said purpose in the shape of the Act by the State and in the shape of Representation of People Act 1951 by Central Government Provision of State Act are para- materia to those of the Central Act. Whether an under the provisions to section 123 of the Act or not? It may be noticed here that notwithstanding in any other law for the time being in force, order passed in an Election Petition under Section 806 and 107 of the Act is made appealable before the Supreme Court under Section 123 of the Act and identical provision is there in section 116-A of the Central Act.

7. Besides this Section 95 of the State Act and section 87 of the Central Act are to the following effect.

"87 Procedure before the High Court (i) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder every electi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document