IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 749 of 2007 ---------------------------- EA.170/2006 OF DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM OP(EA.) 3/2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA ................................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- K. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, KAVITHA BHAVAN,MADANTHACODE, NELLIMUKKU P.O., KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, AKHIL MANDIRAM, MADANTHACODE, NELLIMUKKU P.O., KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM. 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER, KAREEPRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT (EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOTTARAKKARA). R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI. R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA NO. 2012/2007 IN C.R.P NO. 749/2007. DISMISSED 27/02/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. True copy tga M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 749 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the judgment of the District Judge, Kollam in Election Appeal 170/06 whereby the learned District Judge had set aside the order of the Election Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated in that judgment. The matter relates to an election held on 24.9.05 to Kareepra Grama Panchayat Ward No.14. The first respondent was declared as elected and election petition was filed on the ground that the election is to be declared void on the ground of double voting. R1 secured 512 votes and the petitioner secured 511 votes. A recrimination petition was also filed and the question that arose for consideration before the trial court was whether PWs.8 to 11, 15 to 17 and RW1 had exercised their votes twice in the election in two different wards. The trial Court CRP NO. 749 of 2007 -:2:- found in favour of double voting. The trial court after enquiry found that both the candidates have secured equal number of votes thereafter declared the petitioner as elected by drawing lot. 2. The matter was taken before the Court below. The petitioner herein was declared elected also. The appellate court after elaborately considering the materials came to a conclusion that the trial court was not right in comparing the signature in the counter foils alone and according to the said Court it has vitiated the process and therefore held that as the signature of the witnesses are available in the summons as well as in the depositions, the Court should have compared the disputed signature with those signatures as well before arriving at a decision. So far as double voting is concerned it has to be stated that it will be intentional and deliberate and there is always a tendency of changing the signature. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the same intention can be there when the summons is received or when a signature is put in the deposition. But when a CRP NO. 749 of 2007 -:3:- double voting is exercised a manifest intention is there. Therefore it would not be strictly correct to compare those signatures alone and arrive at a decision. Therefore the appellate court found that there are other signatures available before the Court in the summons as well as in the deposition and it can be made use for comparison. One cannot hold that the said approach of the appellate court is erroneous which requires interference at the hands of this Court. Therefore I dismiss the C.R.P. But I direct the trial court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate before the Court closes for summer holidays, 2008. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 12.3.2008. Registry to send a copy of the order immediately to the District court as well as to trial court. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-