Back
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
A. N. GROVER, J.
Giani Zail Singh
Versus
Election Tribunal II, Chandigarh
Civil Writ No. 1748 of 1963
Decided On : 18-10-1963
ELECTION PETITION - EVIDENCE - RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO LEAD - SECTION 90(1) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - INTERPRETATION - RESPONDENT CAN LEAD EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PETITIONER'S CASE - NO BAR UNDER THE ACT - PROCEDURE UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, APPLIES SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Fauza Singh, a voter in the Faridkot constituency, filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of Giani Zail Singh to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. Respondent Kanwarani Jagdish Kaur was also impleaded as a respondent. During the proceedings, Kanwarani Jagdish Kaur sought to lead additional evidence in support of the allegations made in the election petition, claiming that Fauza Singh was acting in collusion with the returned candidate. The Election Tribunal allowed her to produce evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that respondent Kanwarani Jagdish Kaur could lead evidence to support the allegations made in the election petition. The court interpreted Section 90(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides that the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall apply to the trial of election petitions, subject to the provisions of the Act. The court held that this provision allows a respondent to lead evidence in support of the petitioner's case, as there is no express or implied provision in the Act creating a bar to the production of such evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether a respondent in an election petition can lead evidence in support of the petitioner's case? 2. Whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to election petitions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a respondent in an election petition can lead evidence in support of the petitioner's case. The court reasoned that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to election petitions, subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. There is no provision in the Act that expressly or impliedly bars a respondent from leading evidence in support of the petitioner's case. 2. The court held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to election petitions, subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 90(1) of the Act provides that the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to the trial of election petitions, subject to the provisions of the Act. This provision allows a respondent to lead evidence in support of the petitioner's case, as there is no express or implied provision in the Act creating a bar to the production of such evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Election Tribunal did not err in allowing respondent Kanwarani Jagdish Kaur to lead evidence in support of the allegations contained in the election petition.
Shri Chetan Dev was also impleaded as a respondent as he was one of the contesting candidates. It is common ground according to facts stated at the Bar by counsel for the parties that before the Tribunal, Fauza Singh had submitted a list of a large number of witnesses our of whom about fifty had been produced before 19th December, 1961. On that date he filed an application that Sepoy Mukhtiar Singh might be examined on commission as he was on active duty in the NEFA area and his examination was material in view of the allegations contained in sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 8 of the election petition. On 4th January 1963 Fauza Singh applied to the Tribunal that he had withdrawn the power of attorney which he had given in favour of Shri Shamsher Singh Bedi who had hitherto been conducting the case on his behalf and he had engaged a new counsel Shri Harbhagwan Singh. He further stated that he had no more witnesses to produce.
It appears that at that stage respondent Kanwarant, Jagdish Kaur made a prayer to the Tribunal to allow her to lead additional evidence in support of the allegations contained in the election petition on the ground that Fauza Singh had started acting in collusion with the returned candidate. On objections having been raised to such a course being fallowed, arguments in the matter continues on various dales. On 27th March 1963 Fauza Singh stated that he wanted to examine himself as a witness, as also the Handwriting Expert Shri K.S. Puri. This was allowed by the Tribunal on 28th March, 1963. After the specimen signatures of Giani Zail Singh had been taken by Shri K.S. Puri and after he had filed a report in June 1963, Fauza Singh and his counsel made a prayer in August 1963 for production of another Expert. This was disallowed. On 28th August 1953 the Tribunal made the order which has been challenged.
2. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner Gisni Zail Singh is that the respondent, Kanwarani Jagdish Kaur, could not be allowed to lead evidence to support the allegations made in the petition as it was for the petitioner in the election petition to prove his case in any manner that he chooses to do. It is contended that Part VI of the Act containing Chapters I to V constitutes a self-contained code governing the trial of ejection petitions. My attention has been drawn to the various sections of the Act commencing with Section 80 and ending with Section 119 for the purpose of showing that there is no provision under which respondent Kanwarani Jagdish Kaur could ask the Tribunal to allow her to produce evidence in support of the allegations contained in the election petition.
It will be useful at this stage to briefly refer to these Sections. Section 80 merely provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part VI. Section 81 deals with the presentation of petitions and Section 82, with the question of persons who are to be joined as parties to the petition and it is provided that a petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition -
"(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claimi
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
