Dismissed

Tararam v. Prakashchand and Ors.

Rajasthan HC30 May 2018CW/7482/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Trial Court orders in an election petition. Court held no illegality existed in allowing evidence and that the order was an attempt to thwart proceedings. Trial Court discretion affirmed regarding relevance of documents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; orders of Trial Court maintained. Trial Court to permit election petitioner to confront petitioner only with documents concerning him or in his custody.

Tararam Vs Prakashchand and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

¶3

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7482 / 2018.

¶4

Tara Ram S/o Shri Sukha Ram, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Sirvi, R/o Gram Basna, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Prakashchand S/o Shri Tararam, By Caste Mali, R/o Gram Basna, Tehsil Sojat District Pali.

¶8

Returning Officer (Dhalchand Govt. Senior Secondary School, Jaitaran), Gram Panchayat Basna, Tehsil Sojat District Pali.

¶9

District Returning Officer, District Collector, Pali.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tara Ram, Petitioner present-inperson.

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

30/05/2018

¶15

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner-defendant has laid challenge to the order dated 20.03.2018 and the order dated 03.05.2018, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sojat City, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) whereby, the Trial Court has allowed the application of the plaintiffrespondent under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code and later rejected the application of the petitioner-defendant dated 02.05.2018.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-7482/2018]

¶18

The facts in nutshell are that the respondent No.1 (plaintiff)

¶19

filed an election petition challenging petitioner’s election on the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayart Basna, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali. During the proceedings of the election petition, the plaintiffrespondent No.1 herein filed an application dated 01.02.2018 along with certain documents and sought leave to lead evidence in this regard. The petitioner (defendant), the returned candidate, objected to it. However, the said application filed by the election petitioner (Respondent No.1 herein) under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed by the Trial Court, vide its order dated 20.03.2018.

¶20

After passing of the said order, when the matter proceeded before the Trial Court, the petitioner – Tara Ram filed an application dated 02.05.2018 and objected to production of the documents and evidence at the time of his cross-examination.

¶21

The said application filed by the petitioner (Defendant No.1) came to be rejected by the Trial Court, vide its order dated 03.05.2018, inter alia, holding that the defendant No.1, the returned candidate, can be confronted with those documents, which have been permitted by the order dated 20.03.2018. The Court below has also found that the documents filed by the election-petitioner prima facie appears to be relevant and their ultimate applicability and relevance would be seen at the time of final decision of the election petition.

¶22

The petitioner – Mr. Tara Ram, who is present-in-person challenging the orders dated 20.03.2018 and 03.05.2018, contended that the orders passed by the Court below are illegal

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CW-7482/2018]

¶25

and the election-petitioner cannot be permitted to rely upon and submit the documents, such as FIR, Challan Papers etc. relating to other cases, having no relevance in the present case, challenging his election.

¶26

Without observing anything on the applicability or relevance of the documents filed by the election-petitioner (Respondent No.1 herein), as allowed by the Court below, vide its order dated 20.03.2018, suffice it to observe that if the Court below prima facie found, that the documents in question are relevant, it is the discretion of the Court concerned. However, the applicability, relevance and the genuineness of those documents would be seen by the Trial Court, after completion of the evidence and hearing the arguments. There is also no illegality in the order, permitting the petitioner to be confronted with such documents.

¶27

The present writ petition laying challenge to the orders dated 20.03.2018 and 03.05.2018, is simply an attempt to thwart the proceedings before the Court below.

¶28

No case, worth invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.

¶29

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶30

Needless to observe that the Trial Court shall permit the Election Petitioner to confront the defendant No.1 (the petitioner herein) only with the documents, concerning or involving him and/or the same are supposed to be in his custody or knowledge.

¶31

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

¶32

/Mohan/S-151

Tararam v. Prakashchand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tararam v. Prakashchand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar and Anr. Vs Subhash Chandra and Ors.

Laxmi Narain Vs Shri Srikrishan

Lrs of Amba Lal Vs Girdhari Lal and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Jayshree Bijarniya and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Jai Ambey Seva San.andJOB Placement Agency Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.