JUDGMENT

B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the Order Dated 21.09.2012 (Annexure-I) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasapalla (for short, "Election Tribunal") in I.A. No. 6 of 2012 arising out of Election Dispute Case No. 2 of 2012 rejecting the application filed by the present Petitioner, who is the returned candidate & Opp. Party in the election petition for grant of leave to deliver interrogatories.

2. Petitioner's case in a nut-shell is that she along with Opp. Party who was the election Petitioner were contesting in the election for the office of Sarpanch, Rasanga Grama Panchayat. In the said election, the Petitioner having polled majority of valid votes was declared elected. The election of the Writ Petitioner has been challenged by the Opp. Party on the ground of disqualification with the averments that the Writ Petitioner has begotten 3rd child after the cut off date. The Writ Petition-'r entered her 'appearance by filing her show cause. Before commencement of trial of the election dispute, the Writ Petitioner filed application seeking grant of leave to deliver interrogatories on certain aspects pleaded by Opp. Party-election Petitioner in the election petition. The said application, which was registered as I.A. No. 6 of 2012, under Annexure-4, at its foot contains specific questionnaires to be answered by Opp. Party. However, the Election Tribunal rejected the said petition by passing the impugned order. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

3. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the purpose of making application seeking grant of leave to deliver interrogatories on certain aspects pleaded by the Opp. Party in the election petition is to cut the litigation short. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that the provisions contained in Order 11, C.P.C. nowhere mandate that a party's seeking leave to deliver interrogatories forms part of the objection/show cause.

Particularly, when the law does not require the same rejection of the application on such ground is highly unjust, illegal & outcome of non-application of mind of the Election Tribunal. Finding of the Election Tribunal that the intention of the election Petitioner is not clear about the contents of interrogatories is not correct, particularly, when the application for grant of leave to serve interrogatories specifically contains the questionnaires at its foot. Concluding his argument, Mr. Rath submitted to allow the Writ Petition.

4. Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Counsel appearing for the election Petitioner (Opp. Party herein) submitted that the Writ Petitioner filed her show cause on 07.05.2012, where she has tried to explain that she is not coming under the mischief of Section 25(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act for the reasons assigned in the show cause reply with regard to birth of 3rd child. Much after filing of show cause only in the month of September 2012, an application was filed under Order 11, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of leave to deliver interrogatories. On a plain reading of the petition filed under Annexure-4, i.e., interrogatories vis-a-vis the election petition under Annexure-2 & the show cause reply under Annexure-3, it reveals that the petition filed by the Writ Petitioner has got no sanctity & has been filed only with an intention to delay the proceeding. It is further submitted that the note appended to the petition filed under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC clearly shows that the interrogatories have got no relevancy for just decision of the case. Nothing has peen averred in the show cause reply with regard to the questions to be put in the interrogatories as the same, has got no relevant points to decide the election petition. Placing reliance on the proviso to Rule 1, Order 11, C.P.C., it is submitted that the intention of the Writ Petitioner is only to delay the proceeding which has been f