IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A'1_‘ BILASPUR w. .p. (2'27) No. W599 ‘ /2o11 ’/R’amcharitar S/o. Dukhan, aged 55 years, Caste Parhiya, R/o. Village Rewatipur, P.S. Ramchandrapur, Tahsil Ramanuj ganj, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) PETITIONER ‘ VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Returning Officer, (Panchayat) Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, Sub-Tahsildar, Tahsil-Ramanujganj, Distt.— Surguja (C.G.) .fMahendra S/o. Bhulan Singh, Aged about 32 years, Caste Khairwar, Occupation- Agriculture, 3. ’I‘ulsi S/o. Jaishree aged about 50 years,, caste Khairwar. ' 4. Dashrath S/o. Ramlal; aged about 32 years, caste— Kodaku, 5. Fajihat S/o. Dargahi, aged 48 years, caste - Khairwar; 6. Mundrika S/o. Kisun Aged about 46 years, Caste- Kodaku, x i 7. Ramprasad, S/o. Keshwar, aged 27 years, Caste Khairwar. 8. Lalmohan, S/ o. Ramsundar, aged 35 years, caste Khairwar, 9. Satan S/o. Nanhesarg aged about 28 years, Caste Kodaku. 10. Harawan S/o. Rampreet, aged 42 years, Caste Khairwar x10 1 1. Ramlakhan S/o. Ramkishun, aged 50 years, caste Kodaku. Respondent no. 2 to 11 are R/o‘ Village Rewatipur, , P.S. Tahsil— Surguja Ramchandrapur, Ramanujganj, Distt.- (C.G.) l2. The Subdivisional Officer (Rev) Ramaujganj Distt.-Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T- B : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Moh S a 28-01 -2011 Shri Bhupendra Singh, couns lfor the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government dvocate for the State/ respondent No.1 and 12. . Shri Arun Shukla, counsel for he caveator. Heard on admission. By .this petition, under Artici 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner has called in question th correotness and validity of order dated 24/12/10 by which the petitioner‘s a plication purporting under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has been rejected. Learned counsel for the peti oner argued that the election petitioner, while tiling the election petition, did ct comply with the provisions contained in Rule 3 Sub Rule 2 as some pag of the petition were not attested by the election petitioner under his own si nature to be a true copy of the petition. He submits that Mahendra - the Election Tribunal on 25/11/10 and i documents exhibit P/1 to P/3 show to him, have not been attested by him. He further submits that in his eviden e, he has also deposed that the election petition along with an application fo condonation of delay and a photo copy thereof does not contain his att sted signature though it contains his signature. He has further deposed i para 15 that in some pages, he has not put his signature and not attested ut has again stated that he has put his signature. Referring to the evidence o Mahendra, it has been argued that the evidence which has been collecte by the Tribunal so far, shows that the lection petitioner was examined by the his evidence, he has admitted that the [wieéfiaii hrivastava S J. v . be? §2=r}§§ ‘2’339v/ ” The evidence before the Trib been conciuded. The evidence of M‘ unal is stiii going on. It has not so far hendra which has been recorded by the Tribunal. is a matter of assessme t to be done by the Tribunal at the appropriate stage. At this stage, wh n the evidence has not been completed, this Court would not enter into the actual disputes and assessment of the evidence which has so far been c lected, to come to the conclusion with regard to the compliance of the prov sions contained in Rule 3 Sub Rule 2 of the Rules of 1995. The Tribunal in i order has recorded, after perusing the original election petition that the pro isions of Rule 3 Sub Rule 2 have been complied with. ln view of the aforesaid circu stances, particutariy when the trial is still going on and the same has not bee concluded, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order in exercise o its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. accordingly dismissed in limine. The petitioner would be at li erty to raise all the grounds which have been raised by him in this petition nd it shall be the duty of the Tribunal to consider the grounds raised in the ii ht of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, as the Tribunal while reje ing the application has only recorded a prima facie dnding by perusal of the lection petition. f D eepti is petition has to be dismissed and is Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [stew a ma?! faa‘m 311%21 WW mmmm ._ Q ~ mW f1Wm $ W am provisions contained in Rule 3 Sub RJie 2 of the Rules of 1995 have not been complied with and therefore, the sam e is Iiable to be dismissed.