SUNIL AMBWANI, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Smt. Veena Agarwal has been elected to the post of Nagar Pramukh, Nagar Nigam, Moradabad City. The polling, counting and declaration took place on 20.11.2000, 25.11.2000 and 26.11.2000 respectively. By an Election Petition No. 14 of 2000, Smt Asma Aslam, respondent No. 2 has challenged the elections under Section 61 of the U.P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam, 1959, as amended by U.P. Act Nos. 12 of 2000, 26 of 1995, 8 of 1998, 17 of 1999 and 7 of 2000, for declaring of elections dated 26.11.2000 as illegal and void. The election has been challenged on the ground of corrupt practice adopted by petitioner in the elections, irregularities in procedure of counting and exercise of undue influence by Senior Political Leaders, as well as illegality in counting and illegal exclusion of the polling agents of petitioner. Various other allegations have also been made with regard to counting and declaration of result. Upon service of notice, petitioner filed an application under Sections 63, 71, 72 and 78 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, Order VII. Rule 11, CPC, Order VI, Rule 5, CPC and Section 115 CPC (39 -Ga) and that by application dated 18.1.2001, petitioner prayed that she may be permitted to file her written statement, if required after the disposal of the aforesaid application (39 -Ga) and if the first two prayers are rejected, the alternative prayer be allowed. An objection was filed by election petitioner on 24.2.2001.
(2.) ON 6.2.2002, election petitioner respondent No. 2 filed an Application (67 -Ga) stating that she is prepared to record her statement under Order X, Rule 2. CPC for which a date may be fixed. On 19.2.2002, she gave a statement under Order X. Rule 2 and signed the same. The statement is quoted as below : On the same day an application was filed by petitioner regarding statement under Order X, Rule 2, CPC, suggesting the following questions to be put to elucidate the matter in controversy : (1) In what manner and what were the illegalities or irregularities committed in counting the votes ? "(2) If any, illegalities were committed, who committed them ? (3) How many ballot papers were illegally counted ?
(3.) IN view of the aforequoted statement, the Court found that there is no necessity of asking the election petitioner to answer these questions and disposed of the application accordingly. On 6.3.2002, Counsel for petitioner made an application to reject the petition on the ground that election petitioner's statement under Order X, Rule 2 has destroyed her allegation made by her in her petition, with regard to corrupt practices in Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the election petition and that in the circumstances, there is no need to file written statement. Applications 70 -C, 70 -D were also filed on 25.2.2002 to reject the election petition under Section 69 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 read with Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. By the impugned order, the Election Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge (Court No. 2), Moradabad had rejected application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and has directed petitioner is file written statement. He has also rejected applications for deleting Paragraphs 4 to 17 and has observed that the issues will be framed only after filing written statement.;