1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6947 OF 2009 Gautam s/o. Pandurang Bhalerao, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o. Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ....Petitioner. Versus Gautam s/o. Amrutkar Rohinkar, Age 34 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o. Gangakhed. ....Respondent. Shri. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. S.K. Chavan, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 28th June 2010. PER COURT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 13th of August 2009 passed below Exh. 148 in Election Petition No. 5/2007 by the learned District Judge – 1, Gangakhed. The present petitioner, who is respondent in the Election Petition, had filed an application (Exh. 148), objecting to the examination of the witness K.P. Chandrashekhar. This objection has 2 been rejected by the impugned order and the witness has been examined. Now, it is the stage of cross examination by the petitioner, who is the original respondent in the Election Petition. 2. Shri. Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri. Amol Gandhi, relying upon the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, urges that only the witnesses whose names are in the list of witnesses can be examined. He submits that witness K.P. Chandrashekhara is an expert witness. He further submits that examination of the said witness would be in violation of the provisions of section 94 of the Representation of People’s Act regarding maintenance of secrecy. He further submits that the witness being examined to find out in whose favour the vote is cast. 3. Notice in this matter was issued. Shri. Chavan appears for the sole respondent. The matter is heard by consent of parties. 4. The order permitting the election petitioner to examine the witness K.P. Chandrashekhar is an interlocutory order. The questions raised by the learned Senior Counsel regarding validity and correctness of the order impugned in the petition can be gone into, in the event, if the decision of the election petition goes against the original respondent. Witness K.P. Chandrashekhar has been examined as an expert witness and he has to be cross examined by the petitioner, who is 3 respondent in the election petition. The election petition is required to be finished at an earliest. 4. In view of this, no interference in the impugned order is called for at this stage. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open for the petitioner to challenge the said order, in the event, if the decision of the election petition goes against him, on all such grounds as are raised in this petition. Interim order granted by this Court earlier shall continue to operate for the period of one week from today, after expiry of which it shall automatically stands vacated without reference to the Court. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp6947.09