IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4669 of 2008 BINAY KUMAR SINGH son of Late Mangal Prasad Singh, resident of village & P. O. Mane, P.S. Ekma, District- Saran at Chapra. --------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, Chief Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 2. District Election Officer cum Collector, Saran, at Chapra 3. Election Officer cum-Block Development Officer, Ekma, P.S. Ekma, District- Saran at Chapra. 4. Assistant Election Officer, Village- Mane, Panchayat, Ekma, District- Saran at Chapra 5. Arvind Kumar Singh son of Late Krishna Mohan Singh, resident of Village- Nautan, P.O. Nautan, P.S. Ekma, District- Saran at Chapra. -------------- Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Election Commissioner- Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Adv. ----------------- 2. 26.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 21.2.2008 in Election Petition No. 6/2006 passed by Munsif- Ist, Chapra by which he has rejected the petition filed on 13.2.2008 by defendant no. 5- petitioner for examining 10 persons as his witnesses. The petitioner is the candidate declared elected on the post of Mukhia of Ekma Gram Panchayat. One of the defeated candidates i.e., Respondent No. 5 filed Election Petition No. 6/2006 in the Court of Munsif- Ist Chapra. During the course of the trial witnesses of various parties have been examined. Even the State of Bihar which is normally not expected to be made a party to such election petition has examined as many as 26 witnesses on its behalf out of whom ten are counting supervisors. After the evidence of the State was closed, the defendant no. 5- petitioner filed a petition on 13.2.2008 giving fresh list of ten witnesses stating that their examination was essential since - 2 - they have not been examined by the State of Bihar. On a consideration of the entire matter, the Court below has rejected the said petition taking into account the fact that all the ten witnesses proposed to be examined by the petitioner are counting supervisors and a large number of counting supervisors have already been examined. After rejection of the said petition the petitioner was directed to produce his other witnesses on the next date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the ten persons being official witnesses, their evidence would have conclusive effect and therefore it should not be shut out. It is submitted that the A.P.P. contesting the case on behalf of the State of Bihar had gone into collusion with the election petitioner and closed the evidence on behalf of the State of Bihar and that has resulted in filing of the petition on 13.2.2008 on behalf of the petitioner. On a consideration of the aforesaid submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Whatever witnesses the petitioner proposed to mention, he ought to have mentioned them in his list of witnesses which has to be submitted before the trial commences. Evidently after the State of Bihar, which in any case is not a necessary party to any election petition, has examined as many as 26 witnesses, ten of whom are counting supervisors, there is no occasion for the petitioner to examine further witnesses who do not appear in his list of witnesses. The petition dated 13.2.2008 has evidently been filed to somehow delay and - 3 - prolong the conclusion of the trial of which the petitioner would be the sole beneficiary. The Court below has rightly observed that no purpose would be served by examining unnecessarily large number of witnesses on the same point. This Court is in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Election tribunal. There is no merit in the writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)