Civil Revision No. 5595 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5595 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.03.2009. Dharam Pal Petitioner Versus Bagrawat and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. P.S.Jammu,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the respondents ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the validity of the impugned order vide which the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa (hereinafter referred to “the Tribunal) ordered a recount. The petitioner herein were at the hustings defeating the respondent by a margin of 63 votes. The respondent filed an election petition before the Tribunal and applied for invalidation of the impugned election on the plea of corrupt practice and bungling in the counting/rejection of about 80 votes. The following order came to be passed by the Tribunal on 6.1.2006:- “Argument on point of recounting sought to be addressed. However, it was stated at bar that issue be cast and thereafter petition be decided. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed:- 1 to VIII XXXXXXXX” Civil Revision No. 5595 of 2008 -2- **** However, at a later part of the proceedings, the respondent herein filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A, read with 18 Rule 3, read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a request for recount of the ballot papers at the impugned election. The plea was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.9.2008. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner herein that the relevant plea could not have been entertained by the Tribunal as an earlier similar plea had not been pressed. In support of the averment, the learned counsel drawn sustenance from the fact that the respondent herein allowed the issues to be framed and the evidence to be concluded without insistence upon the dispsoal of the recount plea. It is argued that non insistence aforementioned on the part of respondent herein, is evident from the fact that he opted to file an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A read with 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for recount of ballot papers. The plea is denuded of merit. There is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent did not press the recount plea. Infact, in the order dated 30.9.2008, it is noticed that arguments on point of recount were to be addressed. Whether the Tribunal forgot to hear the parties of the latter were guilty (in not insisting on disposal of the plea) of negligence is not relevant for the determination of the point in issue. There is nothing on record to indicate that recount was not pressed. The filing of a plea, under Order 18 Rule 17-A read with 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for recount of ballot papers would, thus, appear to be surplusage which cannot affect the maintainability of recount plea. Civil Revision No. 5595 of 2008 -3- **** It is, then, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent herein had never made grievance of the validity or the manner of recount of votes and challenged the election only on the plea of corrupt practice. The plea is falsified from a perusal of the election petition, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. There is a precise plea therein that respondent-herein had challenged the manner of rejection of votes etc. too. In that view of things, the exercise of recount could have a very consequential effect on the adjudicatory exercise pending consideration before the Tribunal. In the light of the above discussion, the learned counsel for the petitioner has an apprehension that the disposal of the petition may get delayed. He points out that the parties have otherwise concluded their evidence. That assertion on facts is not disputed on behalf of the respondent. The petition shall stand dismissed. However, it is directed that the election Tribunal shall dispose of the election petition within one months from today. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned date. March 27, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge