C.R. No.239 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.239 of 2010 Date of Decision: 15.01.2010. Daljit Singh .……Petitioner Versus Shashi Kumar and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Satbir Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Election of the petitioner Daljit Singh as member of Panchayat Samiti has been challenged by respondent No.1 Shashi Kumar by filing election petition. The Election Tribunal vide order dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) closed the evidence of the petitioner herein by Court order. The Election Tribunal vide other impugned order dated 26.08.2009 (Annexure P-2) allowed application for amendment of reply filed by the petitioner herein, but directed the petitioner to file affidavit that he would not lead any further evidence. Both these orders have been impugned by the petitioner by filing the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Perusal of the zimni orders reproduced in the paper book reveals that the petitioner herein produced four witnesses in his C.R. No.239 of 2010 -2- evidence on 16.04.2009. The said witnesses tendered their affidavits as examination-in-chief, but their cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the election petitioner (respondent No.1 herein). However, thereafter for many dates of hearing, effective proceedings could not be conducted by the Election Tribunal for one reason or the other. Ultimately on 10.08.2009, evidence of the petitioner herein was closed, when no witness of the petitioner was present for cross-examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner be granted one more opportunity to lead his evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs. It is also pointed out that even after allowing amendment in reply filed by petitioner herein, vide order dated 26.08.2009 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner herein was not granted opportunity to lead evidence. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions and I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to lead his evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs. The petitioner has to be saddled with heavy costs because he has approached this Court after delay of 5 months after passing of impugned order (Annexure P-1) and delay of more than 4½ months after passing of order (Annexure P-2). Election petitions are supposed to be disposed of expeditiously and the delay on the part of the petitioner makes him liable to pay heavy costs. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that election petition is still pending and has not yet been finally decided. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without C.R. No.239 of 2010 -3- issuing notice to respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the election petition and also to save the respondents of expenses which they may have to incur in engaging counsel if notice of revision petition is issued to them. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and Election Tribunal is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.10000/- as costs. The petitioner may take assistance of the Tribunal from summoning any evidence, but that shall be no ground for seeking or granting any more opportunity, even on the ground of non-service of witness or non-appearance of witness despite service or for any other reason whatsoever. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 15.01.2010 A. Kaundal