IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 3133 of 2006 HARIRAM V/S RAMCHANDRA & ORS Mr. NARPAT SINGH, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. N M LODHA, for the respondent Date of Order : 27.2.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case was going on for arguments on the application under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, and abruptly, the learned trial Court has decided issue No.3, and has ordered the Returning Officer to be deleted from the array of the parties. It is contended that the Returning Officer was a necessary party, inasmuch as, the petitioner had made averments against the Returning Officer. In my view, the learned trial Court has clearly observed in the impugned order that the Returning Officer is not a necessary party, and has further clarified that if subsequently, it is felt necessary from the evidence, then the person concerned shall be given notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the reply filed by the Returning Officer, of course, he has not supported the case of the petitioner. In my view, in the impugned order, when the learned trial Court itself kept it open to summon the person concerned if necessity so arises, deleting the Returning Officer from the array of respondents does not require any interference in my writ jurisdiction. However, with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, it is clarified that ultimately the election petition shall not be dismissed only on the ground of absence of Returning Officer in the array of the parties. With this, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/