1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5079/2006 Smt Sita vs The Addl. Civil Judge & Ors. Date of order : 5.12.2007. HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Bharat Devasi,for the petitioner. Mr.KR Saran, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the Addl. Civil Judge No.2, Jodhpur passed in election petition preferred by the petitioner when petitioner submitted an application for summoning of the witness-the returning officer by order dated 1st Sept., 2006. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has specifically pleaded in election petition that the returning officer in collusion with the returned candidate committed wrong so as to favour the elected candidate. The petitioner wants to summon the said returning officer to prove his case and particularly, to prove the issue no.1. The trail court committed serious mistake in rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner submitted application after closure of evidence of the petitioner. Not only this, but the trial court did not apply its mind to 2 the facts of the case and even mentioned absolutely irrelevant words in the order. It is submitted that the returning officer is the important witness for the petitioner as he is concerned person and has direct relation with the certain documents which was accepted by the returning officer. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The petitioner also placed on record the certified copies of the order-sheets. From the order-sheet dated 6th March, 2006 it appears that the case was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner and the non- petitioner cross-examined some of the witnesses of the petitioner. The case was adjourned for cross- examination of other witnesses. At this stage, the petitioner submitted application for summoning of the witness- the returning officer. Therefore, so far as court's observation that application was submitted after closure of evidence of the petitioner is concerned, that appears to be wrong, but from order it is apparent that the application was not rejected solely on this ground, but on other grounds for which detailed reasons have been given in the impugned order and the court held that in view of the allegations levelled against the returning officer, it is the duty of the petitioner to prove his case and the returning officer cannot be summoned to get 3 his explanation for the documents as the petitioner's contention is that the returning officer had knowledge of the facts from the documents itself, still he cooperated the non-petitioner returned candidate. In the totality of the facts of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it can be examined when the order is challenged in regular way after the decision of the main election petition and not at this stage. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before appropriate appellate authority in case any occasion arises for doing so to the petitioner. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-