IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5864 of 2009 KALMUN NESSA, wife of Saifullah, resident of Village & P.O. Sabeya, P.S.Ramnagar, Block Ramnagar, Dist. West Champaran----petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Ambri Begum, wife of Skil Ahmad, resident of village & P.O. Sabeya, P.S.Ramnagar,Dist. West Champaran 3.Akhtari Begum, wife of Abul Mohasin, resident of village & P.O. Sabeya, P.O.Ramnagar, Dist. West Champaran 4.Ramsawari Devi, wife of Devi Mahato, resident of village Hardiya P.O. Jogiya, P.S.Ramnagar Dist. West Champaran 5.Sahjadi Begum, wife of Mohammad Masiha, resident of village Pakri P.O.Bargon, P.S. Ramnagar, Dist. West Champaran 6.The District Returning Officer-cum-District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah 7.The Bihar State Election Commission (panchayat) through its Secretary, Bihar,Patna 8.The Block Development Officer-cum-Election Officer, Ramnagar, Dist.West Champaran-respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.S.M.Shabbir Alam For the State :Mr.Arvind Ujjwal,SC XI For State Election Commission:Mr.Sanjeev Nikesh ---- 2. 08.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel No. XI and learned counsel for the State Election Commission. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 26.3.2009 passed in Election Petition No.6/06 by the Munsif, Bagaha, West Champaran. The grievance of the petitioner, who is the winning candidate, is that her time petition has been rejected and her evidence was closed by the impugned order and the subsequent petition for recall of the order has also been rejected. 2 It is evident from the details mentioned in the order dated 18.4.2009 rejecting the petition of the petitioner dated 9.4.2009 for recall that the petitioner was given chance to adduce her evidences in defence from 28.8.2008 and in the course of seven months she had examined only five witnesses except herself for the reasons best known to her. The fact that in the course of seven months the petitioner had not completed her evidence is sufficient to hold that she has attempted to delay the disposal of the election petition with respect to an election that had taken place in the month of June, 2006. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/