The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to permit the examination of a witness as a court witness and the power to allow cross-examination on specific grounds, in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act.

1. These applications are filed by the petitioner to permit Thiru S.Iyer the then District Collector, Karur and the Returning Officer for the election to No. 26, Karur Parliamentary Constituency held on 5.9.1999 to be examined as a court witness, to permit screening of the video taken by the videographers appointed and mark then in the case and to permit the petitioner to cross examine Thiru S.Iyer on all points relating to the election.

2. The case in brief for disposal of all the applications-is as follows:-The petitioner filed the main election petition seeking an order for scrutiny and recounting of the ballot papers in respect of Karur Parliamentary Constituency election held in September 1999. He had also sought for declaration that the election of the 1st respondent is void and illegal and for a further direction that-he was the duly elected successful candidate.

The election of the 1st respondent has been challenged on the ground of corrupt practice and serious irregularities in counting followed by an arbitrary order of the 17th respondent, who happened to be the Returning Officer of the Constituency in rejecting the petitioner's complaint dated 6.10.1999. He had already filed O.A.No.22 of 2001 for the attendance of the 17th respondent in the election petition and the application was also allowed by the common order dated 4.2.2002 along with the other applications. In fact, subpoena was also ordered upon the 17th respondent to appear before the Court on 1.7.2002 to give evidence. Thiru S.Iyer, the Returning Officer of the constituency cannot be examined as the petitioner's witness inasmuch as there is a justifiable apprehension that he would not give evidence supporting the petitioner. It is a specific complaint of the petitioner himself that the Returning Officer did not act impartially and it is unlikely that he will support the case of the petitioner. He took out summons to him to produce relevant documents so that he can be extensively cross examined by his counsel to prove that he did not properly, discharge his duties required under law. Hence, he should-be summoned as a court witness and to be examined in Court relating to the said election including the allegations made against him. For all practical purposes, he has to be treated as an adversary and technically speaking, he is the most competent witness to be examined by the successful candidates. The evidence of Thiru S.Iyer is-indispensable and the trial of the election petition will be completed without- his evidence. This Court has got jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act for the ultimate object of upholding the interest of justice and fair play. The Returning Officer should be directed to file the list of Videographers to whom the work of taking videos during the counting process was-entrusted. The video cassettes have already been filed into this Court as an exhibit and it would be just and proper that the said video cassettes is screened and viewed by the Court.

3. The 1st respondent filed a common counter affidavit to all the three applications and denied the various averments. O.A.No.22 of 2002 was not allowed in full. The petitioner has taken subpoena to the 17th respondent in pursuance of the order in O.A.No.22 of 2002 in the affidavit filed in O.A.No.22 of 2002, the deponent has not stated that he wants to examine the Returning Officer as a court witness. The allegation made against the Returning Officer are all false and invented. The petitioner cannot convert-the election petition as an appeal against the order of the Returning officer rejecting the recount petition. The petitioner wants a rowing enquiry, which is not permissible in-law. 7 documents have been referred to in O.A.No.22 of 2002, but this Court issued subpoena regarding item No.7 only. The Returning Officer cannot be cross examined because he is not the author of the video cassettes. The order dated 4.2.2002 in O.A.No.22 of 2002