Ajay Tewari, J.:- This petition has been filed against that portion of the order dated 5.3.2010 whereby the petitioners have been asked to produce the entire election record viz nomination papers, ballot papers, record pertaining to counting of ballot papers, identification slips of electorates including the number of ballot papers printed and number of ballot papers issued and received by the defendants along with register maintained by defendants relating to dispatch/posting of ballot papers to its members, register envelops and also the receipt register pertaining to receipt of ballot papers issued by the defendants, before the Court on the next date of hearing.

2. Respondent No.1 had filed a civil suit challenging the election to the post of President of the petitioner-association. One of the grounds taken was that the election had been rigged in so much as the postal ballots were either not sent or those postal ballots were used to exercise the voting rights of the members.

3. The trial Court noticed that it would be necessary for respondent No.1 to have access to the said record to be able to lead evidence of mal-practices and consequently directed the petitioners to produce the record on the next date of hearing.

4. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that this kind of omnibus fishing direction can not be permitted. He has also argued that by this process, respondent No.1 will come to know which of the electors has exercised his rights to vote and this would violate the electoral secrecy. He has further argued that if this procedure is allowed then similar suits may be filed at different places of the country and it would be extremely difficult for the petitioner-association to produce this voluminous record in all such Courts. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Smt. Rekha Rana v. Jaipal Sharma and others, [2009(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2522 : 2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1876 (SC)] : AIR 2009 SC 2946 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :-

“ 15. Before closing, we may also deal with the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in regard to the scope of Rule 93. The stand of the appellant is that the election petition lacks sufficient facts on the basis whereof the court could record the requisite satisfaction as stipulated in the said Rule before ordering inspection of the Electoral Roll. Rule 93 provides that the documents mentioned in sub-rule (1) thereof shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by or produced before any person or authority except under the orders of the competent court. Clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 93 refers to marked copy of the Electoral Roll. It is trite that inspection under the said Rule can be allowed only when the following two conditions are satisfied:

(i) The material facts on the basis of which inspection of documents is sought, must be clearly and specially pleaded; and

(ii) The Court must be satisfied on evidence, even if in the form of affidavit, that it is necessary to allow inspection in the interest of justice. It is equally well settled that the inspection of the documents mentioned in sub-rule (1) cannot be allowed as a matter of course and a prayer for inspection must be refused by the Court if it is satisfied that in the garb of inspection, a defeated candidate is indulging in a roving enquiry in order to fish out materials for getting the election set aside....”

5. Counsel for respondent No.1 has, on the other hand, argued that the allegation of his client is that postal ballots have been misused and actually votes have been cast on those ballots by impersonation and by utilizing un-dispatched postal ballots. He has relied upon Sharvan Kumar vs Sumeet Kumar Garg, 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 456 (P&H) wherein this Court held as follows :-

“ 5. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel. It is appropriate to make a reference of the provisions of Order XI Rule 14 of the Code which