HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5574/2019

Pannaram S/o Shri Govindram, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste

Jat, Resident Of Akala, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur.

----Petitioner

Versus

Ramuram S/o Shri Babulal, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Akala,

Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. N.R. Choudhary

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Ranjeet Joshi with Mr. Kapil Bissa

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

22/04/2019

1.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming

the following reliefs:

“(a) By an appropriate writ order or direction the writ

petition filed by the petitioner/defendant may kindly

be allowed.

(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction,

impugned order dated 12.04.2019 (Annex.11) passed

by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nagaur in

Civil Misc. (Election Petition) Case No.06/2015

(46/2015) titled as “Ramuram Vs. Pannaram” may

kindly be quashed and set aside and the application

dated 05.03.2019 (Annex.5) filed by the petitioner for

summoning of the remaining defence witnesses as

mentioned therein as well as in the rejoinder to

application dated 10.04.2019 (Annex.10) may kindly

be allowed as prayed for.

(2 of 4)

[CW-5574/2019]

(c) Any other appropriate writ order or direction,

which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be

passed in favour of the petitioner.

(d) Cost of writ petition may also please be awarded in

favour of the petitioner.”

2.

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court are that

the petitioner contested the elections which was held on

28.01.2015 and was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat

Akala, Panchayat Samiti Khinvsar, District Nagaur. Thereafter, an

election petition was filed by the respondent-plaintiff under

Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with

Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1996 on

the ground that the petitioner had concealed the material facts

while filing the nomination form pertaining to the on going

criminal case.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original

list of witnesses of the petitioner was not exhausted by the

learned trial court, and while he was seeking evidence of certain

witnesses, including Shimbhuram, Kalu Singh, Arjun Singh and

Mohan Ram, the same was not being permitted by the learned

trial court.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a

complaint was lodged by Shimbhuram, who was one of the

defence witnesses alleging that he has been threatened by the

respondent, and therefore, at this stage, it was required for the

trial court to call the witnesses in question.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits

that the list of witnesses produced by the petitioner on

(3 of 4)

[CW-5574/2019]

05.03.2019 only contained names of witnesses and did not include

the name of Shimbhuram.

6.

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits

that in the ongoing criminal trial, the petitioner has already

produced 20 witnesses and has been given many opportunities to

produce the witnesses.

7.

Learned counsel for respondent submits that the

petitioner is merely trying to delay the trial, as there is no

justification of Shimbhuram and others being taken as witnesses

at this fag end.

8.

Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that

the order-sheet dated 19.03.2019 reflects that the evidence of the

petitioner has already been closed, and therefore, at this juncture,

it was not appropriate to grant him any further opportunity to

bring in the witnesses.

9.

This Court on an earlier occasion, had directed the

learned trial court to pass a detailed order as the earlier order was

not a speaking order as it had not recorded certain correct facts.

However, at this stage, the impu