1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6248/2005 *** Kanhiya Lal Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :- 04.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN *** Mr.Rakesh Kumar, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S. Gurjar, for the respondent. Mr.M.A. Khan, Deputy Government Advocate. *** The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.07.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar, whereby, the learned Judge has allowed an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and has dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.2005 petitioner filed an election petition before the learned District Judge No.1, Alwar against the present respondent Nos.1 to 3 for declaration of the Gram Panchayat election held on 04.02.3005 for Sarpanch as illegal. In the petition, the 2 petitioner has stated that in the election held on 04.02.205, he submitted his nomination form along with other persons, but the Returning Officer and respondent No.3 did not follow the rules and regulations constituted for holding election by the Election Commission. Further, 150 valid votes cast in his favour were mixed in the bundle of votes for respondent No.3. Thus, respondent No.3 was illegally declared as elected in the said election. The Returning Officer, Alwar submitted his written statement to the election petition. He denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner. The respondent No.3 also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. wherein he claimed that the petitioner did not give any specific instance and did not take any specific grounds for challenging the election. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 27.07.2005 the learned Judge dismissed the election petition. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that certain allegations were made with regard to the misconduct committed by the Returning Officer. Moreover, allegations were made that the voters were threatened by respondent No.3 and his henchmen. These allegations can be proved only by producing the witnesses. Therefore, these are matters of evidence which can be brought out and established only during the Judicial proceedings. However, without giving chance to produce the appropriate witnesses and the relevant evidence, the learned Judge has thrown out the petition at the very threshold. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Gurjar has contended that vague allegations were made and due to the shortcomings in the pleadings, the learned Judge was justified in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Thus, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 4 Under the Constitution, every person has a right to approach the Court for remedying the wrongs committed against him. This right can be circumscribed only in exceptional cases. Naturally, the party approaching the Court can initially level only allegations against the opposite party. However, these allegations are subject to evidence, which the party would produce in order to buttress its contentions. Although pleadings are important, but considering the fact that allegations levelled are by their very nature general, considering the fact that these allegations can be proved only by producing the appropriate witness and evidence, merely on the basis of pleadings, the case cannot be thrown out at the threshold. Thus, a chance should have been given to the petitioner to prove his case. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 27.07.2005 is legally untenable. Hence, this writ petition is allowed, the order dated 27.07.2005 is quashed and set aside and the 5 Election Tribunal is directed to restart the trial and complete the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki