C.R. No. 3614 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3614 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 15, 2009 Baldev Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Gurmit Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Roshan Lal, Advocate for Mr. N.C. Doabia, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Through this revision petition the order dated March 27, 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, dismissing the application of the petitioner for additional evidence to place on record the pedigree table of Dyal Singh indicating that Gurmit Singh has been shown to be son of Raghubir Singh, has been challenged. C.R. No. 3614 of 2009 [2] Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Election Tribunal has dismissed the application on the misconception that the petitioner who is a defeated candidate is interested in delaying the election petition whereas he is not to gain anything by the delay. So far as the relevance of the document sought to be produced is concerned, counsel for the petitioner submits that it has to be seen subsequently after it is permitted to be taken on record. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance gone through the copy of the election petition filed by the petitioner challenging the election of respondent Gurmit Singh as a Member Panchayat and for declaration that petitioner should be declared as duly elected unopposed Member Panchayat to the post of Gram Panchayat of Village Cheta Tehsil and District Nawanshahar. A perusal of the grounds of challenge indicate that the petitioner has taken up a ground that Gurmit Singh, respondent is the real son of Raghubir Singh son of Dyal Singh and Rachpal Kaur wife of Raghubir Singh and his parents name is duly registered in the school Education Certificate and birth certificate of the village Chowkidar as well as C.M. Nawanshahar, as such the petitioner has been cheated. The objections of the petitioner had been discarded by the Returning Officer without assigning any reason. It has been claimed in the petition that Gurmit Singh is the natural born son of Rachpal Kaur and Raghubir Singh and he was never born to Manjit Kaur wife of Nishan Singh. This fact has been intentionally concealed and the documents have been forged in the name of Gurmit Singh son of Nishan Singh and there is C.R. No. 3614 of 2009 [3] no proof regarding the said parentage. In the reply, Gurmit Singh had explained that Rashpal Singh @ Balbir Singh son of Dyal Singh and Nishan Singh son of Dyal Singh are real brothers and they were residing jointly. Rashpal Singh was blessed with a son, namely, Jagjit Singh, who is presently residing in foreign country for the last number of years and he has also appointed respondent No.1 as his attorney vide registered power of attorney. Nishan Singh son of Dyal Singh has been blessed with son Gurmit Singh i.e. respondent No.1. Manjit Kaur is the natural mother of Gurmit Singh born from the lions of Nishan Singh, as such Gurmit Singh, respondent is son of Nishan Singh and Manjit Kaur and the documents relied upon by the petitioner might have been on account of some typographical and bonafide mistake. I have considered the document which is copy of the pedigree table prepared by revenue official. The said document does not show the name of Nishan Singh who was the son of Dyal Singh. I have also seen the replication filed by the petitioner in which the pleas taken by respondent No.1 in para 4 (i) of the written statement have not been specifically controverted and have been vaguely denied. Taking into consideration all the circumstances and going through the other evidence which has been produced before the Tribunal, the document which is sought to be placed on record without even making a reference to Nishan Singh son of Dyal Singh, the same appears to be not of much relevance sufficient enough to prolong the proceedings further. On the basis of the relevance, the document does not appear to be necessary to C.R. No. 3614 of 2009 [4] be produced as additional evidence. Had the said document been essential for the fair and just decision of the election petition, the same could have been permitted. In view of the above circumstances, I agree with the order passed by the Election Tribunal though for different reasons. Dismissed. July 15, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE