Ajaib Singh vs Arjun Singh

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The appellant had filed the election petition in the court of Election Tribunal, Mansa (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The learned Tribunal dismissed the said election petition and hence his appeal is filed by the appellant.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal did not fix the case for evidence and no opportunity was given to the appellant for leading evidence and the case was dismissed summarily by the learned Tribunalappellant.

The record of the case was requisitioned and I have perused the same. In the record, there is a mention of dated 1.9.98 by the learned Tribunal when it heard learned counsel for the appellant and thereafter the election petition was dismissed and the detailed order is a typed order in Punjabi language.

The appellant has filed a copy of the typed order along with English translation thereof. Learned counsel for the appellant read over the same. The relevant portion of the order can be reproduced as below :

"I have inspected the record and heard the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner could not adduce any evidence to support his allegations, thus he could not prove the allegations made by him in the petition. The petitioner alleged that large number of votes from other villages and votes of minors were registered but the petitioner could not prove that the votes were polled only in favour of respondent and not to the petitioner. The counsel of the petitioner stated that the ruling party favoured the respondent and the petitioner also alleged that he was not allowed to see the votes and that his valid votes were rejected and the respondent''s rejected votes were also made valid and then the result was declared. These allegations hold no ground and are baseless because the petitioner affixed his signatures on result sheet (Form No. 9) after accepting the result as correct. There is no written objection on behalf of the petitioner on the file either before the election or after election, with respect to his challenge as to the registration of votes from other villages and votes of minors. Mere allegations in the petition and inability to adduce any evidence in support in itself is an inherent defect, as a result the petition is not maintainable.

On the basis of the above mentioned facts, the petition suffers from inherent defects in which baseless allegations have been made which have no weight. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon''ble High Court in E.P. No. 20 of 1998 dt. 29.1.98[Page No. 249, 1998 (2) R.C.R. (Civil)], this petition is dismissed with no order to costs. Order is pronounced. File be consigned to record room after compliance."

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the required procedure has not been followed by the Tribunal. She has drawn my attention to Section 81 of the Punjab Election Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). It reads as under :

"81. Procedure before the Election Tribunal. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of the rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the Election Tribunal as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) to the trial of suits :

Provided that the Election Tribunal shall have the discretion to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine any witness or witnesses, if it is of the opinion that the evidence of such witness or witnesses is not material for the decision of the election petition or that the party tendering such witness or witnesses is doing so on frivolous ground or with a view to delay the proceedings of the election petition."

(2) The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Central Act 1 of 1872) shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to apply in all respects to the trial of an election petition.

Relying on the above section of the Act, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that as far as possible the procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') has to be followed but the Tribunal has failed to follow the same. No reason is given by the Tribunal for not allowing the appellant to produce evidence.

In the above quoted part of the order of the learned Tribunal some findings relating to facts, have been given and inference have been drawn. This, learned Tribunal, could not have done without recording the evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal has held that the allegations are baseless and that they have no weight because the petitioner affixed his signatures on the result sheet. The petitioner could have shown in the evidence as to how his signature has appeared in the result sheet.

Because of the above reasons, I find that the learned Tribunal has erred in not following the Code as prescribed under Section 81 of the Act. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.