IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4044 of 2009 RAN VIJAY SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 02. 25.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the Private respondent no.3. The petitioner was the winning candidate for the post of Mukhiya in the Election of the Gram Pancyatat, Satkodaria P.S.- K. Nagar, Purnea. His win was questioned by private respondent no.2 Afroj Alam in Miscellaneous Election Petition No. 11 of 2006. The petitioner is aggrieved by the original order dated 20.1.2009 and the subsequent order dated 3.2.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order insofar as they shut out the petitioner from leading his evidence are not in consonance with principles of judicial fair play. Even, the petition for recall of the earlier order has been rejected. The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial and shall lead his evidence day to day. Learned counsel for private respondent no.2 informs the Court that the arguments on behalf of the petitioner have also been concluded. The Election Petition is of the year, 2006. 2 The order dated 20.1.2009 notices the satisfaction of the Court that the petitioner had been seeking repeated adjournments and failing to lead evidence delaying the disposal of the trial. Obviously this recording of the trial court is based on the earlier narration of the order-sheet, when the Court arrived at a judicial satisfaction that the petitioner was unnecessarily trying to prolong matters by withholding evidence. His evidence was thus closed. He then filed a recall petition, copy of which was not given to private respondent no.2 initially. By the second order dated 3.2.2009, the trial court again records its satisfaction rejecting the explanation sought to be furnished on behalf of the petitioner holding that he was trying to unnecessarily delay the disposal of the Suit. The Court adequately records that the Suit has been filed in the year 2006. The tenure for the post was five years. Two and half years have already passed. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 16.4.2008 and since then the matter remained pending for the evidence of the present petitioner, who kept filing adjournment petitions on several grounds, including Transfer petitions. When the Transfer petition was rejected, he filed a Revision Application. Against the rejection of the same, learned counsel for private respondent no.2 3 informs the Court that the petitioner then filed C.W.J.C. No. 16590 of 2008 and which has also been dismissed as withdrawn on 8.12.2010. On the aforesaid reasoning, the Court recorded its satisfaction of delaying tactics on part of the petitioner. The present case is perhaps aptly symptomatic of the manner in which the judicial system is manipulated by litigants not to allow an expeditious decision making. The impugned orders by the court below being reasoned and discussed, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the same warranting interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)