IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.92 of 2008 ANWARI BEGUM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02. 10.02.2010 The election of the petitioner was challenged by way of an election petition by Respondent No. 5. While the trial was going on, election petitioner filed an application to the Tribunal for a direction to call for a copy of the FAX sent by the election petitioner to the Election Commission protesting. Petitioner is alleged to have protested to such a step being taken by the Election Tribunal. The writ application is directed against the order by which the Election Tribunal has ordered for calling of the said FAX massage. Mr. Mishra submits that the Election Tribunal has acted in contravention to Order XIV Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and had not assigned any reason as to why the documents are called for. In my view, whether theevidence has been wrongly received or not would be an issue at the conclusion of the Trial Court and can be assailed once the judgment is delivered but the Trial can not be delayed on these grounds. Whether the action is legal or not, whether the evidence can be taken on record or not and what is the probative value or the evidentiary value of the evidence 2 brought on record are all matters which has to be considered at the stage of trial. Petitioner, if aggrieved, would have an occasion to challenge that action which would arise after judgment is delivered. The writ petition, in my view is premature and is dismissed as such. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)