IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28253 of 2007(L) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA.778/2007 IN OPELE.55/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- KADAVATH MOHAMMED, AGED 57, S/O.KOYAKUTTY MASTER, TRIKKANDIYOOR, P.O.TIRUR-4, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.R.MEERA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KANDACHIRA ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O.HAMSA, TRIKKANDIYOOR, P.O.TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: 1. EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF I.A NO.778/2007 IN ELECTION O.P NO.55/2005 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR. 2. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF IN I.A NO.778/2007 IN O.P(ELE.) NO.55/2005 DATED 28/06/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28253 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the returned candidate from Ward No. 32 of Tirur Municipality in the general election held on 2005. His election was impeached by the respondent filing an election petition as O.P (ELE.) No. 55 of 2005 before the Munsiff Court, Tirur. Among other grounds, the election is impeached on the ground of double voting. Petitioner has resisted the challenge by filing a counter. Pending trial, the petitioner moved an application for summoning certain documents like marked voters list, counter foil of ballot papers etc. The learned Munsiff after considering the merit of that petition dismissed it vide Ext.P2 order holding that the petition has been filed only to delay the trial. Petitioner has not filed a recrimination petition was also taken note by the learned Munsiff to hold that the request made for summoning the documents is intended to delay the trial. Ext.P2 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P2 order is challenged in the writ petition. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. From the submissions made it is seen that the trial of the election petition has not progressed though the stay initially granted in the writ petition was only for a period of two weeks and not extended, W.P.(C) No.28253 OF 2007 Page numbers thereafter. Perusing Ext.P2 order with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case warranting interference invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this court. I find no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Munsiff that the petitioner/returned candidate had moved the petition for summoning the documents to protract the trial of the election petition. There will be a direction to the court below to expedite the trial of the petition and dispose it at the earliest. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv