Judgment

C.R. Dash, J. Whether an Election Case can be re-opened in a routine manner at the behest of one of the parties, after hearing is closed and the matter is adjourned to a future date for pronouncement of judgment, is the question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition.

2. The present petitioner is the election petitioner in Election Misc. Case No.1 of 2012 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhuban. Election for the post of Sarpanch of Ekatali Gram Panchayat under Bhuban Block in the district of Dhenkanal was held on 15.02.2012. Opposite party no.1 Jhili Prava Behera won the election, whereas the present petitioner Bharati Behera lost. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers, the present petitioner had objected the nomination of the present opposite party no.1 on the ground that she is not eligible to contest the election, as she has given birth to three children, namely Sonalika Behera on 02.08.2002, Sibani Behera on 08.05.2006 and Subhransu Sekhar Behera on 24.12.2009 through her husband Nanda Kishore Behera. As all the aforesaid three children were born after the cut off date, i.e. 21.04.1995, opposite party no.1 is disqualified and is not eligible to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch of Ekatali Gram Panchayat. The Election Officer having eschewed the objection, allowed the nomination and opposite party no.1 got elected by polling highest vote. The petitioner was then obliged to file Election Misc. Case No.1 of 2012 on the selfsame ground. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement denying the allegation and took the positive stand that her alleged third child Subhransu Sekhar Behera is, in fact, the son of her husband’s younger brother namely Jogananda Behera and his wife Annapurna Behera.

3. After the pleading was over, evidence from both the sides were led, though opposite party no.1 is alleged to have adopted dilly-dally tactics in adducing her part of evidence. Ultimately hearing was closed by the learned Election Tribunal on 08.10.2013 after hearing of the oral argument and the case was posted to 21.10.2013 for delivery of judgment.

4. On the basis of advance petition filed by learned counsel for opposite party no.1 however the case was re-opened again on 09.10.2013. Again argument was heard in part on different dates and on 28.10.2013 some documents were marked as Exhibits at the behest of opposite party no.1. On 15.11.2013 one witness was examined on behalf of opposite party no.1 and on 25.11.2013 two original documents along with specimen signature of Jogananda Behera were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhubaneswar for comparison of handwritings of Jogananda Behera.

5. Mr. Manoj Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner impugns the entire proceeding after 09.10.2013 as arbitrary, unjustified and without jurisdiction on the ground that learned Election Tribunal, after closing the hearing of the case, could not have re-opened the same while posting the case to a future date for pronouncement of judgment.

Mr. Samir Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 however relying on the provisions contained in Order 18, Rule 17, C.P.C. read with Section 151 thereof, submits that at any stage before pronouncement of judgment a case can be re-opened to discover the truth, which is the very purpose of any judicial trial.

6. Mr. Manoj Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the cases of Arjun Singh vrs. Mohindra Kumar and others, A.I.R. 1964 SC 993 and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal and Another vrs. M.S.S. Food Products, (2012) 2 SCC 196, to substantiate his contention.

Mr. Samir Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 on the other hand relies on the cases of K.K. Velusamy vrs. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (I) CLR (SC) – 961 and Doshei Dei and others vrs. Rama Rauta and others, 1985 (I) OLR – 12, to support his submission.

7. In the case of Arjun Singh (supra) the question of applicability of Order 9 Rule 7, C.P.C., after the