The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence and documents created prior to the cause of action, and the limited grounds for interference with findings of fact.

JUDGMENT

S.K.Mishra, J.

The petitioner, in this case, is the returned candidate for the post of Sarpanch of Srirampur Grama Panchayat, Kendrapara of the election held on 19.02.2007. She assails the confirming judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Cuttack in Election Appeal No.03 of 2010, decided on 12.05.2011, upholding the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pattamundai in Election Misc. Case No.16 of 2007. In the said election Misc. Case the election of the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as ‘the returned candidate’, was declared void and illegal as she was disqualified to hold the said post under Section 25(1)(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. The opposite party, i.e. the election petitioner and the returned candidate along with two other candidates contested for the post of Sarpanch in Srirampur Grama Panchayat, which was held on 19.02.2007. In that election the returned candidate having polled the highest number of valid votes, was declared elected on 21.02.2007. The opposite party, then, filed an election petition before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pattamundai challenging her election on the ground that the returned candidate having begotten her fourth children on 21.02.1997, i.e. after the cut off date, has incurred disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act and also the vote polled by the opposite party having been improperly rejected in counting, the election of the returned candidate was illegal and invalid, and hence, she prays to declare the same to be void.

2. The returned candidate filed her written counter to the petition with the specific plea that Tanuj and Ranoj are not her sons, but the sons of her husband’s brother, and hence, she has no disqualification to contest the election. She also denied the plea of rejection of valid votes cast in favour of the opposite party-election petitioner.

3. On such pleadings, the learned trial judge framed nine issues. Out of which, the issue which remains to be considered in this writ petition is whether the opposite party is disqualified to contest the election on the ground of having more than two children on the date of filing of the nomination in view of Section 25(1)(v) of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial judge and the learned appellate judge are incorrect in view of non-consideration of certain documents and consideration of certain inadmissible evidence. It was contended that the finding of fact that the Ranoj, as the son of the returned candidate, is factually incorrect, and therefore, the findings have to be set aside. The learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, contended that the findings recorded by the court of original as well as the appellate jurisdiction are not contrary to the materials available on record.

5. The law is now well settled that a court exercising writ jurisdiction should interfere with the findings recorded by the learned court, who has exercised original as well as appellate jurisdiction only if it finds that there is error with respect to the jurisdiction of the court. Secondly, any error of law if pointed out to have been committed by the court, whose order is under challenge, in exercising jurisdiction, the court shall also interfere with the order. Normally, a finding of fact, howsoever grave, it may be, is not to be interfered with by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Appreciation of evidence like an appellate court is not within the realm of the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India but where it is shown that the court, whose order is under challenge, based his findings on no evidence or has admitted evidence, which are inadmissible and acted upon the same or has ignored admissible evidence while giving the findings of factual aspect of the case, t