-1- DB C.M.Appl.51/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.51 of 2010 IN S.B. Election Petition No.8 of 2009 Sanwar Lal Jat V E R S U S Shri Mahendra Singh & Others Date of Judgment :::: 08/07/2010 Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Parag Rastogi & Mr. Manu Bhargava, Counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner Mr. Mohd. Rahil Kalam } on behalf of A.A.G. Mr. Kamal Paraswal } Counsel for the Respondents Mr. Sukhveer Singh } Mr. Praveen Poswal, on behalf of Mr. V.S. Gurjar, Counsel for the respondent No.1 *** PER COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.6 under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for taking the written- statement on behalf of the respondent No.6, the Returning officer on record. In the application, it has been stated that vide order dated 26.10.2009 the Court had closed the right of the respondent No.6 to file the written-statement. It has further been stated in the application filed on behalf of the respondent No.6 that S.D.M. Nasirabad, who was the Officer In-charge of the case and the Returning Officer, was transferred vide order dated 16.10.2009 and a new officer, who was posted in his place joined his duty only on 26.10.2009 and, therefore, the written-statement could not be signed and submitted before the Court within the time allowed. -2- DB C.M.Appl.51/2010 It has, therefore, been prayed that there was sufficient cause for the respondent No.6 not to file the written- statement on 26.10.2009 and the order dated 26.10.2009 closing the right of the respondent No.6 to file the written- statement be recalled and the written-statement, which has been filed, along with the application on 09.11.2009 may be taken on record. A reply to the aforesaid application has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has stated that the order for closing the right of the respondent No.6 to file the written-statement was passed on 24.08.2009 after the Registry had reported that all the respondents had been served. It has been submitted that there is no order closing the right of the respondent No.6 to file the written-statement dated 26.10.2009. On the basis of the above factual position, it has been contended that sufficient cause shown in the application, as contained in Para Nos.1 and 2 thereof is in relation to the order passed on 26.10.2009, whereas, in fact, the order closing the right to file the written-statement of the respondent No.6 had been passed on 24.08.2009 itself. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions. In the instant case, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order closing the right of the respondent No.6 to file the written-statement was passed on 24.08.2009 is correct, as is evident from the order-sheet dated 24.08.2009. -3- DB C.M.Appl.51/2010 This Court on 24.08.2009 passed the following order :- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. As per Office report dated 16.07.2009 and 30.07.2009 the service is complete. Learned counsels appearing for the respondent No.1 and 4 seek two week's time to file reply. Time prayed for is allowed in the interest of justice. The right to file the written-statements or reply of the respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 is closed. List this matter on 09.09.2009, as prayed. It was stated here that counsel for the respondent No.6 was present in the Court on 24.08.2009, but no request for granting time to file the written-statement on behalf of the respondent No.6 had been made and, therefore, the order closing the right of the respondent No.6 to file the written- statement was passed. There is, therefore, force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is correct as per record. In the application submitted by the respondent No.6 for taking the written-statement of the respondentNo.6 on record, it has been stated as follows :- “1. THAT the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.10.2009 was pleased to close the right of the non-petitioner No.6 to file written-statement. 2. THAT the S.D.M. Nasirabad, the Officer Incharge of the case and the Returning Officer was transferred vide order dated 16.10.2009. The new officer who was posed in his place assumed the charge on 26.10.2009. Therefore, the written-statement could not be signed and submitted before the Hon'ble Court within the stipulated period.” -4- DB C.M.Appl.51/2010 It would, thus, be seen from the narration in the application that sufficient cause, which has been pleaded is in respect of the non-filing of the written-statement on 26.10.2009 on account of the transfer of the officer Incharge concerned on 16.10.2009. In fact, the right to file the written- statement of the respondent No.6 had already been closed vide order dated 24.08.2009 for which no sufficient cause has been pleaded. In that view of the matter, sufficient cause shown in the application on account of the transfer of the officer Incharge on 16.10.2009 has no relevancy. No sufficient cause has been shown on behalf of the respondent No.6 for not having filed the written- statement on 24.08.2009 or for not having sought further time. In view of the above and more particularly the reply submitted by the petitioner, there is no force in the application submitted on behalf of the respondent No.6 and this application is accordingly dismissed. (Dalip Singh),J. Ashok/