FAO No. 3832 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 3832 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.4.2011 Sukhpal Singh .....Appellant vs Bohar Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. G. P. S. Bal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. A. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-SDM, Ferozepur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), allowing the election petition of respondent no. 1 Bohar Singh and order dated 27.4.2010 rejecting the application filed by the appellant herein for setting aside of ex-parte order. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant was required to clarify as to against which order the present appeal has been filed considering the provisions of Section 100 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. He submitted that the present appeal may be treated against the order dated 27.4.2010. Apparently, the appeal against the aforesaid order will be belated considering the fact that it was filed on 30.6.2010. Though along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 34 days has also been filed, but if the present appeal is considered to be filed against order dated 27.4.2010, the delay would be more than for which the application has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he be given an opportunity to file a fresh application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the ex-parte order dated 26.2.2010, for the reason FAO No. 3832 of 2010 (2) that after the acceptance of the election petition filed by respondent no. 1, the appellant had filed application before the Tribunal for setting aside the ex-parte order. Thereafter, even the civil writ petition was also filed in this court. It is in this process that the time was taken before approaching this court. However, considering the fact that the controversy hinges on the question as to whether respondent no. 1 had withdrawn his nomination paper or somebody else had signed posing himself as Bohar Singh, record of the Tribunal had already been summoned. This court thought it appropriate to hear the contentions of the parties on merits, as record will show as to whether Bohar Singh had withdrawn the nomination paper or someone else. With the assistance of both the counsels, the record of the Tribunal which contained documents received from the returning officer, were perused to see as to whether the signatures of the person who had signed at the time of withdrawal of nomination were of the same person who had signed nomination papers at the time of filing. For this purpose, signatures of Bohar Singh on Form no. 4, Check-list and affidavit filed at the time of filing of nomination paper, no dues certificate and application given to the Tehsilar, Zira for issuance of clearance certificate have been compared with the signatures of Bohar Singh on Form No. B filed by him at the time of withdrawal of nomination paper. A comparison of two sets of signatures, even if we see the same with naked eyes, shows that the person who had signed as Bohar Singh at the time of withdrawal of nomination paper was not same, as there is difference not only in one of the letters in the signatures, rather they differ in entirety. Signatures of Bohar Singh were also present on the election petition filed by him. The same are in line with his admitted signatures. Though learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue that the counsel had noted wrong date of hearing and for that reason he could not cross-examine the expert witness produced by respondent no. 1, the matter be remitted back for that purpose, but I do not find any valid reason therefor considering the fact that ultimately it is only the signatures of Bohar Singh on the documents which are to be compared. No useful FAO No. 3832 of 2010 (3) purpose would be served by directing the Tribunal to decide this issue, when it can be considered by this court. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 29.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge