The court clarified that Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is not applicable in election disputes under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, emphasizing the necessity for reasoned judicial decisions.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties.

2. Core issue involved herein appears to be; there is rejection of an application U/o.7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. at the instance of the return candidate filed vide Annexure-2 and decided vide Annexure-4 an unreasoned one.

3. In the first instance considering the contention raised herein by the learned counsel for Petitioner and learned State Counsel, this Court finds, there is no appearance of contesting Opposite Parties in spite of repeated notice. It further appears, such application has been rejected by the order dated 14.11.2022 with the following order:-

“Order Dtd.14.11.22 Advocates for both parties are present and filed their respective haziras. Record is posed today for order. Heard both the parties at length. Petition U/o.VII R-11 of C.P.C filed by respondent No.1 is rejected in the interest of justice. Put up later for settlement of issues.”

4. Considering the allegation made by the Petitioner that there should have been at least a reasoned order involving such important petition and submission of learned State Counsel that there is no room for filing an application U/o.7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. in an Election Dispute, this Court though finds strength in the submission of learned counsel for Petitioner, however, the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sheragada was required to get into the case of the parties and even while rejecting such application ought to have given reasons for such purpose. This Court while deprecating such practice, hopes and expects, the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sheragada will remain careful in disposing such type of applications in future.

5. Getting into the merit involving the application U/o.7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., this Court reading through the provision at Section 35 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 finds, the provision reads as follows :-

“35. Procedure before the [Civil Judge (Junior Division)]

:– (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder every election Petition shall be tried by the [Civil Judge (Junior Division)] 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.

(2) The [Civil Judge (Junior Division)] shall not be required to record or to have the evidence recorded in full but shall make a memorandum of the evidence sufficient in his opinion for the purpose of deciding the case.

(3) The [Civil Judge (Junior Division)] shall, for the purpose of deciding any issue receive so much evidence, oral or documentary, as he considers necessary and may require the production of any evidence.

(4) The [Civil Judge (Junior Division)] may, at any stage of the proceedings require the Petitioner to give further security for the payment of all costs incurred or which is likely to be incurred by any Opposite Party and if within the time fixed by him or within such further time as he may allow such security is not furnished, he may dismiss the Petition.

(5) No witness or other person shall be required to disclose the name of the person for whom he has Voted at an election.

(6) The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, apply in the trail of an election Petition.

(7) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment to the contrary no document shall be inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it is not duly stamped or registered.

(8) Reasonable expenses incurred by any person in attending to give evidence may be allowed to such person which shall, unless the [Civil Judge (Junior Division)] otherwise directs, be deemed to be part of the costs.

(9) Any order as to costs passed by the [Civil Judge (Junior Division)] shall be executed by him on application made in that behalf in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it where a decree for the payment of money passed by himself as suit.”

6. Considering the submissions made by the parties and on plain reading of th