In election petitions, courts should not issue directions for leading additional expert evidence that was not raised by the parties during the trial, as it improperly allows for the filling of lacunae in the proceedings; the matter must be decided based on material already available on record.

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 7443 of 2024, whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, set aside the orders of the Trial Court1 and the First Appellate Court, and remanded the Election Petition for fresh consideration.

3. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: a. The elections to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khalila Majra, Panipat were held on 02.11.2022, wherein the appellant and the respondent No.1 each secured 302 votes. On the Signature Not Verified

Digita1lly sHigneed rbyeinafter referred to as Election Tribunal.

NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2026.04.01 Reason:

basis of draw of lots, respondent No.1 was declared as winner.

b. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an Election Petition bearing No. EP/02/2022 dated 09.11.2022 before the Election Tribunal seeking setting aside of the election of respondent No.1 on the ground that he had employed corrupt means, including allegations of double polling.

c. The Tribunal by an order dated 10.11.2023 partly allowed the Election Petition and recorded a finding that four votes had been cast twice. The election of respondent No. 1 was set aside, and fresh elections were directed to be conducted.

d. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2023 before the First Appellate Court which came to be dismissed by an order dated 12.03.2024, affirming the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

e. Still aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition bearing CWP No. 7443 of 2024 before the High Court challenging the concurrent findings.

f. By the impugned order dated 04.02.2025, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the First Appellate Court, and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. By the impugned order, the High Court has set aside the order of the Election Tribunal passed in Election Petition preferred by the present appellant, whereby the Tribunal had set aside the election of the returned candidate, i.e., the respondent no.1 herein, and had directed for holding fresh elections.

6. The High Court, by the impugned order, set aside the Tribunal’s order and has remanded the matter with directions for recording and getting the expert evidence. Paragraph 16 to 18 of the impugned order passed by the High Court, which issued the said directions, are reproduced hereunder :

“16. Be that as it may, all the supra required recourses for assigning the completest truth to the subscribing of thumb impressions on the original of the voter list Ex. P7, but remained unadopted by the learned trial Court concerned. The lack of adoption of the said recourses by the learned trial Court concerned, and, yet the learned trial Court concerned, after concluding that they were forged thumb impressions, resultantly also concluding that there was double casting of votes in favour of the present appellant, were but all ill made conclusions, or became based on pure surmises, and, no sanctity thereto can be assigned.

17. Be that as it may, the voters, whose votes were cast twice, upon theirs stepping into the witness box, were required to be presented with all the thumb impressions/signatures, as purportedly became made by them on the voters list, and, that too twice. However, even the said recourse remained unadopted. For failure of the said recourse being made, no conclusion was required to be made, as became inaptly drawn qua the voters concerned, thus voting twice.

Final order

18. For all the above stated reasons, this Court finds merit in the instant petiti