mp -1- wp528_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 528 OF 2011 Arif Ibrahim Choudhari .. Petitioner Versus Sou. Vahida Aayyaj Nayakwadi and others .. Respondents Mr. A. M. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Mr. M. L. Patil for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. G. H. Keluskar for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2011 P.C. : By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13th December 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner calling for the records from the Election Commissioner came to be rejected. The petitioner is elected in the elections held to the Municipal Corporation. The respondent No. 1 has filed an Election Petition challenging the election of the petitioner on the ground that on the date of the election, the petitioner was not qualified since he had not completed 21 years of age. In an earlier round of litigation, the present petitioner had filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same was rejected by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved thereby, the mp -2- wp528_11 Civil Revision Application was filed. This Court vide order dated 13.01.2011 dismissed the said Civil Revision Application No. 553 of 2010. 2. It appears that, in the meantime, the petitioner has filed an application below exhibit-102 for getting the record of the Returning Officer. The same is rejected. 3. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that from the record, it would be clear that the respondent No. 1 was very much present at the time of scrutiny. He submits that since the respondent No. 1 has denied that she was present at the time of scrutiny, it had become necessary to get the record of the Returning Officer. He further submits that no prejudice would be caused if such an application was allowed. 4. The order impugned is purely an interlocutory order in nature. The learned Trial Court has given sound and cogent reasons while rejecting the application. The learned Trial Court has found that if it is the contention of the present petitioner that the witness i.e. the respondent No. 1 does not speak the truth, the other side i.e. the petitioner can very well prove this fact by leading cogent evidence so as to dislodge his contention. It is, thus, clear that the learned Judge himself has kept the issue open and has held that the petitioner would be in a position to bring evidence on record when his turn comes so as to dislodge the statement made by Respondent No. 1 - Election Petitioner. mp -3- wp528_11 5. It appears that the petitioner wants to challenge every interlocutory order before this Court and protract the Election Petition. 6. While exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court would be permitted to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court only when it is found that the discretion exercised has been exercised in a perverse manner. As already noticed hereinabove, the learned Trial Judge has given sound and cogent reasons for rejecting the application. 7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition rejected. (B. R. GAVAI, J)