SBCWP NO.10357/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10357/2007. Suba Ram Vs. Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) No.3, Alwar. & Ors. Date of Order : 4/1/2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Mohit Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Azad Ahmned for the respondents. Shri Sanjay Srivastava, Addl.Govt. Counsel. **** BY THE COURT:- Aggrieved by the order dated 23/11/2007, this writ petition has been preferred. Petitioner had moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1A and Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with another application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Both the applications of the petitioner were dismissed by the impugned-order. 2) So far as the first application is concerned, that was pertaining to taking an enquiry report dated 15/2/2007 on record. Learned court below considered this application and came to the conclusion that the enquiry report is having no bearing material on the issue as the issue involved in the matter would be decided by the court itself after considering the rival SBCWP NO.10357/07. 2 submissions as well as evidence led by the parties. It has further been given out that the application has been moved for taking certain documents on record after lapse of several months inasmuch as, issues were framed by the court on 7/12/2005 itself. 3) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 4) Perusal of the order as well as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, it becomes clear that the petitioner moved an application for taking on record the enquiry report conducted by the department pursuant to the allegations made against the Sarpanch. The said enquiry report was submitted long back thus, petitioner could not offer any justification of the delay in placing the said document on record and further the allegation made in the election petition is to be decided by the court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and, therefore, if any independent finding has been recorded by the departmental authorities then, it cannot be taken as a finding for the Election Tribunal also. In view of this finding, I find no error in the order passed by the court below in dismissing the prayer made by the petitioner for taking the enquiry report on record. SBCWP NO.10357/07. 3 5) So far as another application moved by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is concenred, it is made clear that if court comes to the conclusion that both the certificates are forged one then, proper proceedings as envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. would be taken. This otherwise has been narrated by the court in his impugned-order. 6) In view of the above, no interference is called for in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the cost of Rs.1000/- so imposed is set-aside. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil