IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19013 of 2008 Nand Kishore Thakur, son of Shri Jeevachh Thakur, resident of Village- Barail, (Ward No. 5) P.S. and District- Supaul. ----Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna through its Secretary. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, Supaul, District-Supaul 3. The Block Development Officer-cum-Election Officer, Supaul, District-Supaul ----------Respondents Ist set 4. Ram Lakhan Kamat son of Late Shiv Kamat, resident of Village- Jagatpur, P.S. & District- Supaul. ..Petitioner of Original Election petition- Respondent 2nd Set. 5. Md. Ishlam S/O Md. Yusuf, resident of village + P.O.- Mirniyan, P.S. & District-Supaul. 6. Gajendra Mukhiya, son of Shukhdeo Mukhiya, resident of village- Jagatpur, P.O. Barail, P.S. & District- Supaul. 7. Gandhi Mandal son of late Rameshwar Mandal, resident of village- Jagatpur, P.O.- Barail, P.S. and District-Supaul. 8. Jagdeo Mukhiya son of Late Jungal Mukhiya, R/o Village Jagatpur, P.O.- Barail, P.S. & District- Supaul. 9. Dinesh Thakur S/o Kapildeo Thakur, R/o Barail Milik, P.O.- Barail, P.S. and Distt- Supaul. 10. Begam Shahjanh W/o Md. Firoz (Marhsal), R/o Village- Mohaniyan, P.S.- and Distt.- Supaul. 11. Ram Bilash Rai S/o Late Mishri Lal Rai, R/o Village + P.O- Mohaniyan, P.S.- and Distt.- Supaul. 12. Lachhan Mukhiya S/o Late Bhikho Mukhiya, R/o Village- Jagatpur P.O.- Barail, P.S.- and Distt.- Supaul. 13. Satya Narayan Mahto S/o Late Khudo Mahto, R/o Village- Jagatpur, P.O.- Barail, P.S.- and Distt.- Supaul. ……. Constesting Candidates Respondents 3rd Set. ------ For the petitioner : M/s. Amrit Abhijat, Manoj Kumar Gupta Upendra Yadav, Advocates. For respondent no.4 : M/s. Jitendra Prasad Singh & Santosh Kumar Verma, Advocates. ------ 04/ 05.08.2010 Learned counsel for respondent no.4 Ram Lakhan - 2 - Kamat submits that earlier he was respondent no.5, but due to deletion of name of respondent no.4, the numbering has changed and he has been elevated to respondent no.4. Hence, he submits that in the second line of first paragraph as well as in the fifth line of the second paragraph of order dated 23.07.2010, respondent no.5 has wrongly been typed although it should have been respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner supports the contention of learned counsel for respondent no.4. They appear to be correct. Hence, the said order is modified accordingly. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.4 who is the main contesting party. This matter is being finally heard and decided at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.4, who is the main contesting party being the sole petitioner of the election petition. 3. This petition has been filed challenging order dated 25.08.2008 (Annexure-3) by which the learned Munsif-cum- Election Tribunal, Supaul allowed the petition of respondent no.4 who was the sole election petitioner for marking two documents as exhibit at the fag end of the final arguments in Election Petition No.11 of 2006. 4. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below. However, since some evidence has been adduced at the fag end of the arguments by respondent no.4 (original election petitioner), a chance of rebuttal - 3 - has to be given to the writ petitioner, who is the contesting opposite party in the said election petition. The learned court below shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order in that regard keeping in view the aforesaid observation. 5. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)