IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.927 of 2008 ASHA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : MR. S.N.P. Sharma,Sr.Advocate For the Commission : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Ravindra Kr. Sinha, Advocate ----------- 4 16.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has approached this High Court against the order dated 10.12.2007, passed in Election Petition No. 24 of 2006, by learned Munsif, IInd, Gaya. The dispute is with regard to the returned candidate of Gram Panchayat, Bara Prakhand, Bodh Gaya. Based on the allegation made in the Election Petition, written statement has been filed by the present petitioner, who is the returned candidate. Issues have been formulated and from perusal of the impugned order, it seems evidence has also been led, but somewhere along the petitioner decided to press an application on unfolding of such events that the basic question of maintainability on various grounds ought to be decided by the election tribunal. The Court need not record in detail the objection because the impugned order has dealt with the said matter in detail but one thing this Court would surely like to record that success or failure of any such proceeding is dependent on the evidence 2 which may come in support of the averments. Many statements are made but, parties succeed in only such matters, where they have brought home the evidence in support of the pleading. Whether there has been sufficiency of pleading or not is a question which can also be looked into by the election tribunal. The only thing which this Court records is that the plaint is not a cursory one and objection raised by the petitioner cannot be readily accepted. Keeping the fact that almost two years have gone past since the election petition have filed and the evidence has already started, it would not to be in the interest of justice to entertain the objection or the challenge to the order dated 10.12.2007. The reasoning given by the learned Munsif does not seem to be erroneous. The petitioner has freedom to assist the Court on all the aspects of the matter including maintainability. The writ application is dismissed with a direction that the merits of the suit should be decided at the earliest. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)