IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 12566 of 2007(U) ---------------------------------------- EP.10/2005 OF MUNSIFF- MAGISTRATE COURT, PERAMBARA. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- NAGATH VIMALA, W/O.KUNHANANDAN NAIR, VANNARATH HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE, MUYIPOTH DESOM, P.O. MUYIPOTH. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR, SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SMT.PRIYA VIJAYAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- K.P.SUJATHA, W/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, KACHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE, MUYIPOTH DESOM, P.O.MUYIPOTH. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.12566/2007-U: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ELECTION PETITION NO. 10/2005 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S MAGISTRATE COURT, PERAMBRA BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 04/12/2006 IN W.P.(C). NO. 26524/2006 ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 25/01/2007 IN W.A. NO. 154/2007 ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 03/02/2007 IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 10/2005 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERAMBRA. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION (IA.214/2007) IN ELECTION PETITION NO.10/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERAMBRA. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN I.A. 214/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERAMBRA. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE I.A. 235/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERAMBRA. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 22/03/2007 IN IA.NOS.214/07 & 235/2007 IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 10/2005 ISSUED BY MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERAMBRA. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE BATTA MEMO OF THE WITNESS LIST OF 7 PERSONS IN ELECTION O.P. NO. 10/2005 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERAMBRA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 12566 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Perambra in I.A.Nos.214/07 and 235/07 in Ele.O.P.10/05. I.A.214/07 is an application filed by the election petitioner to examine the witnesses and I.A.235/07 is an application filed to condone the delay in filing the witness list. By the said application the petitioner wants to summon additional witnesses to prove that the persons whom are alleged to have cast double voting are seen to have exercised double voting by the witnesses and to prove the same she seeks permission to examine them. 2. In an election case when these types of disputes arise it may not be really a substantial form of evidence. The oral evidence that somebody has seen some persons exercising double voting may not be acceptable. It is for the reason that one agent can only be in one booth and he W.P.C 12566 OF 2007 -:2:- cannot see a person casting vote in two different booths. In these types of cases what is required is better and scientific evidence that may be made available to the Court. Therefore I feel the petitioner can be permitted to produce scientific evidence against the persons against whom the allegations are made of double voting. When such a situation arises and there is a request made by the petitioner the Court can consider it. Therefore I do not propose to accept the witness list. 3. So far as the prayer for examining petitioner's witness K. Raghavan Nair is concerned it is only filed to prove that he has submitted an application before the RDO for recounting which has been rejected by the RDO. Therefore the order under challenge is modified with a direction to the learned Munsiff to permit to examine K. Raghavan Nair by the petitioner to prove that he has submitted an application for recounting and that has been rejected by the RDO. I also permit the petitioner, when a situation arises that he needs scientific evidence to prove the W.P.C 12566 OF 2007 -:3:- case of double voting, it be considered if appropriate application comes at that stage. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-