Sukhwinder Singh vs The Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-Cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sangrur and Others

Kuldip Singh, J.—Learned counsel for the revisionist is aggrieved by the order dated 31.8.2015, passed by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrur, vide which it was decided that the application of the present revisionist (Annexure-P-3) filed under Section 80 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, for dismissing the election petition being not maintainable, will be decided after recording the entire evidence. The plea of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the election petition was required to be presented in person, but it has been presented by the counsel. Therefore, the matter regarding the maintainability should have been decided as preliminary issue and that the Presiding Officer has erred in deciding to determine the said issue after recording the entire evidence.

I am of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order. What happens sometime during the Court proceedings is that the party is present, but only the presence of the counsel is recorded. Therefore, it will be a question of fact to be proved during the proceedings by leading the evidence as to whether the party was also present alongwith the counsel and only the presence of the counsel was marked by the concerned officer or its staff. Therefore, if the Presiding Officer of the Election Tribunal has decided to record the findings on this point after the evidence of the parties is recorded, there is nothing illegal in the same.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to the various authorities of this Court in Nachhattar Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal and Others, , Major Singh Vs. Pesiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.) and Others, , Gurlal Singh v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Block Lehra, District Sangrur and others, 2010 (5) RCR (Civil) 474 , Manjit Kaur Vs. Bhupinder Kaur etc., , Suresh Kumar Singla Vs. Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others, and Smt. Nasib kaur and Others Vs. The Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Election Tribunal and Others, .

In none of the above authorities produced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it was held that the issue of maintainability must be decided as preliminary issue. The present revision is accordingly dismissed.