The Court affirmed the principle that necessary documents not in a party's control must be provided for a just adjudication of election petitions, underscoring its duty to ensure truth in judicial proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Election Petitioner in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 praying for issuance of summons to the District Election Officer-cum-Collector, Bolangir, to cause production of all nomination papers along with the affidavit in Form 26, checklist, the details of election expenditure account along with other documents filed by the respondent of the ELPET No.20 of 2024 (returned candidate) before the Returning Officer of 67-Patnagarh Assembly Constituency specially indicated in the schedule of the I.A. stating in the I.A. that, he (Election Petitioner) has filed the said Election Petition No.20/2024 praying for the declaration of the Election of the respondent as MLA of 67-Patnagarh Assembly Constituency as void by taking several grounds in his Election Petition. In order to substantiate the grounds taken in his Election Petition against the respondent, the nomination papers along with affidavit in Form 26 and other documents filed by the respondent before the returning officer of 67-Patnagarh Assembly Constituency are very much essential and necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the Election Petition. The said documents are in possession over the District Election Officer-cum-Collector, Bolangir. The said documents are required for deciding the controversies between the parties. If the said documents will not be called for from the custody of the District Election Officer-cum-Collector, Bolangir to the Election Petition No.20 of 2024, the Election Petition filed by the petitioner cannot be duly proved and he shall be prejudiced seriously.

To which, the respondent (returned candidate) in Election Petition No.20/2024 objected stating in his objection that,

“before calling for the documents in question, perusal of the copies thereof by the Court is necessary, without perusing the copies of the documents to be called for, the same cannot be called for. There is no explanation in the I.A. filed by the Election Petitioner, what prevented him (Election Petitioner) to get the certified copy of the required documents, to which, he is interested to call for. For which, the I.A. filed by the Election Petitioner cannot be allowed.”

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Election Petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

3. The provisions of law envisaged in Section 87 of the R.P. Act, 1951 clearly clarify that, subject to the provisions of the said Act and of any rules made under that Act, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits.

4. It has been envisaged in Order 13, Rule 10 (2) of the CPC, 1908 that, if bringing to a document in to the record is essential for proving a case of a party, the same should not ordinarily be refused. Because, it is the duty of the Court to find out the truth.

It is the settled propositions of law that, when the documents in question are not under the control of a party and the said documents are required for the purpose of proper adjudication and disposal of a suit or a proceeding, in that situation, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot refuse the prayer of a party for calling for the documents from the custody of others, when the said documents are essentially required for the true and correct disposal of a suit or a proceeding.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:

i. In a case between Laxman Vs. Parsuram & Another reported in 2018 (3) Civ.C.C. 602 (Raj.) that, when the document