IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2433 of 2008 INDU DEVI Versus THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION& ORS ----------- 4. 30.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the election petitioner- respondent no. 5. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 2.1.2008 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chapra in Election Petition No. 17 of 2006 (Rajkumari Devi Vs. Indu Devi), by which he has closed the evidence of witnesses of respondent nos. 3 and 4, i.e., the official witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the elected candidate had not taken steps to examine the official witnesses because although they were not required to be impleaded as party under Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Act, 2006 yet they had been made party and were also appearing through the Government Pleader before the Court. The petitioner was thus expecting that they would be examined in due course and had not got them examined as her witnesses till her evidence was closed on 19.11.2007. However, the said matter was placed on record by the petitioner by filing a petition on 19.11.2007 itself stating that the examination of the Assistant Returning Officer was essential and in case he is not examined as official witness then she should be permitted to examine him as her witness. Subsequently, the Assistant Returning Officer did not get himself examined and prayer for time was made on his behalf which was not moved and accordingly the - 2 - court below rejected the same and closed the evidence of the O.P.Nos. 3 and 4 in the court below by the impugned order dated 2.1.2008. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court. This Court does not consider it proper for the petitioner to challenge the closing of the evidence of any other opposite party in the court below since the said order directly and immediately affects only the parties whose evidence has been closed. Thus, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated 2.1.2008. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interest of justice the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for re-opening of her evidence so as to call the official witnesses as witnesses on her behalf. The writ application is accordingly dismissed with the observation that in case the petitioner files such an application for re- opening of her evidence within a period of two weeks from today then the same shall be considered by the court below in accordance with law keeping in view the fact that when the petitioner’s evidence was being closed she had already put on record a petition that the examination of the Assistant Returning Officer is essential for the just decision in the case. Let the said matter be decided by the court below within a period of four weeks of the filing of the petition for re- opening of her evidence by the petitioner. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)