RAMA DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DHOLPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12-4-2012 passed by the District Judge Dholpur in election petition No.32/2010. Learned District Judge has under the impugned order aforesaid closed defence evidence in election petition before him for the reason that in spite of earlier opportunities by way of adjournment of the case on cost the petitioner-defendant was seeking a further adjournment, which was unjustified and absolutely unwarranted. Learned District Judge has recorded the fact that the petition had been pending for over a year since 9-2-2011 for the defence evidence and repeated adjournments were unduly prolonging the trial of the case.

(2.) ORDINARILY, it is not for this court in the exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the discretion of the courts below exercised in the course of trial-more so on matters of adjournment and refusal of adjournments. That is the prerogative of the Presiding Officer who runs the trial and needs to control it. The jurisdiction of this court is to interfere only with the orders passed by the courts below which are shockingly perverse, or vitiated by misdirection in law. None of the two situations obtain in the present case. The impugned order is reasonable order recording the fact of earlier adjournments even with costs and the absence of good reason for another.