SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Ori) 420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Parija, J.
TILOTTAMA BHOLA - APPELLANT
Versus
COLLECTOR J.S. PUR - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) No. 18155 of 2012
Decided On : 11-09-2013

The court established that the procedures prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code are not strictly applicable to an election petition as per Section 35 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code - Election Dispute - Orissa Gram Panchayat Act - Section 25(1)(v) - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The writ petition was filed by an elected ward Member challenging the order allowing a document to be marked as Exhibit-7 in violation of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned order was proper and justified as the document was relevant and necessary for adjudication of the election dispute.

Issues: The main issue was the acceptance of a document at a belated stage in the trial of an election petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the strict applicability of the procedure provided under the Civil Procedure Code is not required to be followed in an election dispute as per Section 35 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court did not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Parija, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the elected ward Member of Ward No. 2 of Mouza-Badanga, under Balia Gram Panchayat in the district of Jagatsinghpur, challenging the order dated 12.09.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kujanga, in Election Petition No. 10 of 2012, allowing the document produced by the opposite party No. 3 at a belated stage to be marked as Exhibit-7, in violation of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party No. 3 contested the election for the post of Ward Member of Ward No. 2 under Balia Gram Panchayat, in the district of Kujanga and having lost the election to the petitioner, she filed election petition before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kujanga, which was registered as Election Petition No. 10 of 2012, alleging that the petitioner has three children and her youngest child has been born on 11.03.2004, after the cut off date and therefore she is disqualified for being nominated or elected as Ward Member u/s 25 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act.

3. The present petitioner appeared pursuant to notice and filed her objection/show-cause to the allegations made in the election petition. During trial of the election petition, the opposite party No. 3 filed a petition with a prayer to accept some documents as detailed in the memo as exhibits, on behalf of the petitioner, as those are public documents, with a further prayer to summon through court, the PHEO Kujanga CHC and Smt. Abanti Rout, Female Health Worker, Balia, to adduce evidence before the court. The present petitioner filed her objection to the said petition of the opposite party No. 3.

4. Learned Civil Judge considering the documents sought to be exhibited by opposite party No. 3 has allowed the photo copy of the Family Planning Sterilization Report of the petitioner, obtained under RTI Act by one Krutibasa Gochhayat, to be marked as Exhibit-7, as it was a public document, issued by the Medical Officer, Kujanga.

5. As one Abanti Rout, Female Health Worker of Balia had put her signature in the application form of the Sterilization Report and as the PHEO, Kujanga, had issued the said document marked at Ext.7, learned Civil Judge felt that their evidence is necessary and has accordingly directed for issue of summons to them, with a direction to the PHEO, Kujanga, to produce the original form i.e. Sterilization Report of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the opposite party No. 3 has not disclosed as to why the document (Ext. 7) was not filed along with the election petition, as required under Order 7 Rule- 14 CPC or before settlement of issues, as provided under Order 13, Rule 1 CPC, learned Civil Judge was not justified in accepting the same at a belated stage, after the trial of the case had commenced at marking the same as Exhibit-7. In this regard, it is submitted that the opposite party No. 3 was required to file all the relevant and necessary documents upon which she relies, along with her election petition and in the present case opposite party No. 3 having not done so, she cannot be permitted to produce those documents at a belated stage, during trial of an election petition and pray for acceptance of the same. It is accordingly submitted that the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge, accepting the said document and marking the same Exhibit-7 cannot be sustained.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has filed certified copy of the order dated 09.10.2012 from which it reveals that in the meantime the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 have been recorded and the documents have been marked as Exhibits-7/a, 8/a, 8/b and 8/c. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order has already been worked out. It is further submitted that as the document (Ext.7) is a public document issued by the Medical Officer, Kujanga, which is relevant to adjudicate the dispute t







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top