ANTU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, learned A.C. to G.A.1 for the State.

(2.) The petitioner by the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has questioned the order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the learned Munsif, Sikarhana at Motihari, District East Champaran in Election Petition No. 2 of 2011 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to reject the application filed by the petitioner on 19.3.2012 praying for debarring the respondent No.2 from adducing the evidence. The election petition in question has been filed by the respondent No.2 questioning the election of the petitioner as Mukhia pursuant to the Panchayat Election of 2011. It is the case of the petitioner that whereas the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 requires the parties to give the list of witnesses before the settlement of issues but no such list of witness was filed by the respondent No.2 and it is in this background that the application in question was filed by him praying for dismissal of the election petition. In response to the said application the respondent No.2 filed an application stating therein that he had already filed a list of witness and the learned Court below after hearing the parties was pleased to reject the objection raised by the petitioner. Whereas the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1(1) of the Code requires the parties to present the list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents for the purpose of obtaining summons from the Court, to be filed not later than 15 days from the date on which the issues are settled, the provisions of Sub Rule 3 thereof vests the Court concerned with the discretionary powers to permit a party to make good any omission therein even after expiry of the date so prescribed upon sufficient cause be shown. Rule 1A of Order 16 further enables a party to a suit to bring any witness to give evidence or to produce documents even without applying for summons. A bare reading of the provisions of Order 16 rule 1 and 1A manifests that although a duty has been cast upon the parties to give the list of witnesses within 15 days of settlement of the issues but the right is not extinguished altogether upon failure to do so by any party as is manifest from the provisions of Rule 1(3) and 1A and the party concerned yet can produce his witnesses with leave of the Court. The power so vested in the trial Court thus being discretionary, the Court below taking notice of the circumstances that the list of witnesses had been filed by the respondent No.2, who also prayed for time for production of the evidence and which prayer had been accepted by the Court below, found no reasons to interfere with the permission so allowed. It is in this background that the objection of the petitioner was rejected. This Court in view of the legal position taken note of hereinabove, does not find any infirmity or the necessity to interfere with the order impugned passed by the Court below and this application is accordingly disposed of.