The power to recall witnesses should be used sparingly and primarily to clarify issues or doubts, not to introduce new evidence. Legislative intent for expeditious disposal of election petitions should be considered when deciding on applications to recall and reopen evidence.

1. This Application has been filed by the applicant, who is the election petitioner, praying to recall and reopen the evidence of C.W.1 and to mark the documents listed in the Schedule to the Judge's Summons.

2. According to the applicant, he explained the alleged malpractices committed by the first respondent during the 2009 Parliamentary election in the amended Election Petition and in the affidavit filed along with the petition. The first respondent also filed his amended written statement and counter statement in the matter and, thereafter, the trial has commenced.

3. On behalf of the applicant, nine witnesses have been examined including him as P.Ws.1 to 9 and he has also marked Exs.P-1 to P-29. When the matter stood thus, he took an application in O.A.No.48 of 2013 in the Election Petition to issue sub-poena to the then District Election Officer/District Collector of Madurai Parliamentary Constituency, in short, "the Returning Officer", to produce certain documents and to authorise an official to adduce oral evidence. This Court, by an order dated 13.03.2013, directed the issue of sub-poena to the Returning Officer and posted the matter for his examination on 27.03.2013. Thereafter, the Returning Officer was examined orally and through him seven documents were marked as C.Ws.1 to 7. This Court directed the Returning Officer to submit the entire records relating to the complaints received and action taken on the various alleged malpractices and code violations by the first respondent during the 2009 Parliamentary election at Madurai. On 15.04.2013, the Returning Officer produced the entire documents contained in 3 bound volumes before the Court.

4. On 25.06.2013, the counsel for the applicant filed a search memo before the cross-examination of R.W.1 in the Registry of this Court and perused the entire documents handed over by the Returning Officer to the Court. On a perusal of the said documents, the counsel came across several discrepancies and malpractices committed by the first respondent and his men which had been taken note of by the Returning Officer and also about certain vital documents which would go to prove the case against the first respondent. The Returning Officer has investigated the complaints about the money distribution in covers while taking aarthy, distribution and seizures of sarees, distribution of tokens, the report regarding the telecast during the kumbabhishekam, the complaint against the Public Relations Officer etc. The documents detailed in the schedule to the Judge's Summons are very much vital for proper adjudication of the Election Petition and the same are available only with the Returning Officer. Unless the same are marked, this Court would not be in a position to get to the bottom of the case. Therefore, it is necessary to bring on record the documents detailed in the schedule and to mark the same as court documents.

5. Hence, this application at the instance of the applicant/election petitioner.

6. The first/contesting respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating as under :

6.1. The substituted petitioner in the election petition, by way of this application, cannot recall and reopen the evidence of C.W.1 and to mark the documents listed in the schedule, as they are not part of the original election petition. None of the documents referred to in the Schedule to the Judge's Summons has been referred to in the election petition and, at this stage, the said documents cannot be received and such procedure is unknown to law. This respondent was not in a position to know the identity, veracity of the documents and further he had no opportunity to raise his view about the documents in the counter statement filed by him.

6.2. There is no provision in law to recall and reopen the case of C.W.1 after chief and cross-examination of all witnesses has been over and, therefore, the question of recalling C.W.1 is not possible, as the applicant had the opportunity to mark all the documen