This dismissal of a writ petition under Article 227 held that the trial court correctly closed the returned candidate's evidence for failure to appear without establishing incapacity, rejecting the petitioner's unjustified prayer for adjournment.
The writ petition was dismissed with no adjournment or relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7338 / 2017
Haneef Khan S/o Shri Sumer Khan, by Caste Mev,, Aged About 78 Years, Village Garh Ajan, Panchayat Samiti & Tehsil Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Ishaque Khan S/o Shri Roop Khan, by Caste Mev,, Village Dhoolwas, Panchayat Samiti & Tehsil Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Azad Ahmed.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
17/05/2017
Heard the counsel for the petitioner-returned candidate (hereinafter ‘the returned candidate’) and perused the impugned order dated 27.04.2017 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Kaman (Bharatpur) (hereinafter ‘the trial court’) whereby the evidence of the returned candidate has been closed by the trial court noting that despite five opportunities, the returned candidate did not appear for leading his defence evidence. The trial court has also found that albeit the ground for adjournment sought by the returned candidate was of his illness, no document in support thereof was filed before it. Nor was there any material on record to establish that the returned candidate was incapable to appear before the trial court and lead evidence/be subject to cross examination.
(2 of 2)
[CW-7338/2017]
The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is confined to interfering with orders vitiated by perversity, patent illegality and error of jurisdiction. None of the aforesaid situation obtains in the instant case. The trial court has passed a well reasoned order closing the returned candidate’s evidence. No litigant has a right to claim an adjournment without good cause. More so on multiple occasions as in the instant case. Further this Court can take judicial notice of the proclivity of returned candidates to seek unjustified adjournments to delay trial in an election petition with the obvious intent to expand most of their term of five years.
The documents sought to be relied upon in this petition to justify the prayer for adjournment on 27.04.2017, when the returned candidate’s evidence was closed are quite irrelevant for the date on which adjournment was sought and even otherwise cannot be considered by this Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where supervisory jurisdiction of the Court requires evaluation of the impugned order on the material before the court below.
I therefore find no force in the petition. It is dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J.
R.Vaishnav
4.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 permits interference in the trial court's decision to close a returned candidate's evidence due to failure to appear despite multipl
Whether the petitioner's prayer for adjournment was justified given the stated reason of illness without documentary support.
Haneef Khan
Ishaque Khan
Alok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
