- (1.) On May 3, 1983 we made the following Order : "Special leave granted. The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court refusing the request of the appellant to examine his 54 witnesses who, according to him, were kept present is varied. The election petitioner-appellant herein shall produce all those witnesses and examine all or any of them whomsoever he wants to examine out of them and in respect of whom, the Court did not grant permission to examine. The examination shall be taken up day to day. No Court assistance need be rendered for procuring the presence of all or any of them and the examination shall be completed within a span of 7 days commencing from the date on which the High Court commences examination of witnesses. Subject to the convenience of the learned Judge, and the parties recording of evidence shall be taken up on this side of the summer vacation of the High Court. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reasons to follow." Here are the reasons.
(2.) Appellant Shri Mange Ram contested the election to Haryana Legislative Assembly from Jind Legislative Assembly constituency. 14 persons offered themselves as candidates for the election. One Shri Brij Mohan, Ist respondent was declared elected. Appellant was defeated. The remaining candidates lost their deposits. Appellant called in question the election of the Ist respondent (the returned candidate) by presenting an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ('1951 Act' for short). To this petition, the returned candidate as well as all other candidates who lost the election were impleaded as parties. In the election petition, charges of corrupt practice and irregularities and illegalities in the conduct of election were made. The returned candidate contested the petition. After going through the pleadings of the parties, the Court ascertained the points on which parties were at variance and framed appropriate issues. The election petition reached the stage of recording evidence.
(3.) It appears an application was filed by the appellant-election petitioner seeking permission to produce and examine witnesses whose names were set out in the application. It was averred in the application that the names of the witnesses whom he desires to produce are already mentioned in the appropriate paragraphs of the election petition and that the petitioner would keep the witnesses present. The learned Judge to whom the election petition was assigned made an order on Nov. 29, 1982 that as and when witnesses are produced, appropriate orders will be passed determining whether the witnesses could or could not be produced. In the meantime, the evidence of the election petitioner was being recorded. It appears that again on January 11, 1983, petitioner submitted a list of witnesses intimating to the Court that he desires to examine them. This was objected to by the returned candidate. The learned Judge after hearing the parties made an order upholding the objection raised by the returned candidate that the purpose for which the witnesses were offered is not mentioned in the list and therefore, the election petitioner could not be permitted to examine such witnesses. A further observation was made by the Court that the election petitioner could not be allowed to examine more witnesses whose names had not been mentioned in the list of witnesses submitted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil P. C. and the rules framed by the High Court. Accordingly, the learned Judge held that except Bahre son of Sher Singh, no other witness could be examined and that as soon as the evidence of the aforementioned witness was recorded, the Court would proceed to record the evidence on behalf of the returned candidate; and thereafter the matter will be set down for hearing oral arguments of the learned counsel of either side. It is this order which was questioned in this appeal by special leave.;