Disposed

Shyam Sunder Verma v. Jagat and 14 Others

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2019A227/6729/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an Article 227 writ petition challenging an election tribunal order that denied the petitioner additional time to lead evidence. The court set aside the order based on counsel's undertaking to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 24.8.2019 is set aside. The petitioner to complete evidence within three weeks; other parties within five weeks for disposal in two months.

Shyam Sunder Verma Vs Jagat and 14 Others — Election Law | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6729 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Verma Respondent :- Jagat And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Sri Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Advocate)

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

Being aggrieved by orders dated 16.8.2019 and 24.8.2019 (wrongly mentioned as 24.8.2018 in the prayer clause) passed by the Election Tribunal in Election Petition No.1 of 2017, the instant petition has been filed. The petitioner is defendant no.1 in the election petition and it is his election to the post of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khalilabad, Sant Kabir Nagar which is under challenge.

¶7

On 7.5.2019, the Tribunal allowed the application of the petitioner bearing Paper No.161-Ga upon payment of cost of Rs.500/- and granted last opportunity to the petitioner to complete his evidence by 13.5.2019. It seems that thereafter the petitioner supplied list of witnesses and so far, seven of his witnesses have already been examined. On 24.8.2019, the statement of DW-7 Lavkesh Yadav was recorded. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the application 209-Ga moved by the petitioner for permission to lead the remaining evidence on some other date. The said application was rejected by the Tribunal observing that no further opportunity would be given to the petitioner to lead evidence. The Tribunal fixed 27.8.2019 for holding further proceedings/arguments.

¶8

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri R.K. Ojha submitted that the petitioner had filed the application 209-Ga asserting that 23.8.2019 was holiday on account of Krishna Janmastami, consequently, only one witness was available for cross-examination. The other witnesses had gone out of station on account of the festive season. It is submitted that in the past, the petitioner had already adduced evidence of six other witnesses. In other words, the submission is that there was no deliberate attempt on part of the petitioner to delay the proceedings. He stated that he is giving up the challenge to the order dated 16.8.2019.

¶9

Sri Rakesh Pande, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 (election petitioner) submitted that there was a direction by this Court dated 3.8.2018 in Matters Under Article 227 No.5341 of 2018 for concluding the proceedings

¶10

within six months. He submitted that on account of delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner, the matter could not be decided within time frame fixed by this Court. However, he very fairly states that in case the petitioner is subjected to strict conditions for completing his evidence within a specified time frame, he has no objection to the impugned order being set aside.

¶11

Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner would complete his remaining evidence within three weeks and he further states that he would not seek any unnecessary adjournment and would cooperate in the disposal of the election petition within two months from today.

¶12

Accordingly and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 24.8.2019 is hereby set aside. The petitioner will complete his remaining evidence within three weeks from today, failing which, no further time will granted to him. The other parties shall also complete their evidence within next five weeks, so that the election petition is decided within two months from today.

¶13

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶14

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)

¶15

Order Date :- 19.10.2019 SL

Shyam Sunder Verma v. Jagat and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Verma v. Jagat and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mewati Vs Hargovind and 6 Others

Bandana Devi Vs Raghvendra Tiwari

Rajendra Kumar Jalaan and 3 Others Vs Subhash and 4 Others

Thakur Prasad Vs Smt. Saroj Gupta and 12 Others

Smt. Punam Vs Daya Shankar Singh and 5 Others

M/S Gujral Associates and Another Vs K 3 G Infra Structure Pvt. Ltd.