IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7105 of 2009 ***** Smt. Ranjana Devi @ Ranjan Jha @ Ranjan Devi, W/o Lalit Jha, resident of village- Enayatpur, P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Nauhatta, Distt.- Saharsa. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Bihar State Election Commission through its Secretary, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, (Panchayat), Saharsa. 4. The Deputy Collector-cum-Returning Officer (Panchayat), Nauhatta, Distt.-Saharsa. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Panchayat Election Counting Observer, Nauhatta, District-Sahara. 6. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharsa. 7. Smt. Manju Prabha Devi, W/o Mithilesh Thakur, resident of village- Bhakua, P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Nauhatta, Distt.-Saharsa. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent No.7: Mr. Nakul Kumar Jamuar, Advocate For the Commission : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Standing Counsel XV Dr. A. Shankar, AC to Standing Counsel XV ----------- 2. 29.6.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The challenge is to the order dated 7.5.2009 passed in Election Petition No.29/06 by the learned Munsif, Saharsa by virtue of which a prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for production of certain documents and also for recall of the order for closing evidence stood rejected. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has serious repercussions for the petitioner as he has been precluded from defending the petition effectively and without the proper evidence having been brought on record. If the writ application is not allowed interfering with the order the petitioner apprehends that it will have repercussions if the matter gets finally decided. - 2 - Submission of learned counsel for the private respondent, however, is that there is no legal infirmity with the order as such because the order impugned lays down the reason why both the applications came to be rejected. From the narrations of the impugned order it seems that whole exercise on behalf of the petitioner is to delay the election petition and its final adjudication by dragging it as long as he can rather then getting the issue decided since he is the returned candidate to the election in question. Since this Court does not find any legal infirmity with the order impugned the prejudice which has been created or will be created in favour of the petitioner is a creation of the petitioner himself. This Court is not endowed with the power under Article 226 to come to the defence of a litigant merely because his case has not been conducted in a proper manner and in accordance with the law. The abrasion of the kind will have to be suffered by the litigant and in absence of any infirmity in the order the Court will not interfere with the same merely for the asking. The writ application has no merit it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observation made in this order is limited to the impugned order concedrned. The writ application stands dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)