RAJESH BINDAL J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of above mentioned two appeals bearing FAO Nos. 5622 and 5623 of 2009, as the contention in law sought to be raised by learned counsel for the appellants is identical. The facts have been noticed from FAO No. 5622 of 2009.
(2.) THE dispute in the election petition filed before the Tribunal was pertaining to the election of Gram Panchayat, Bulepur, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. The election having been challenged, Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Payal (for short, 'the Tribunal') accepted the petition filed by Jarnail Kaur while setting aside the election of Kuldip Kaur. The order has been impugned by Kuldip Kaur before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a brief argument, namely, that in terms of the provisions of Section 81 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') providing for trial of the election petition, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which pertain to trial of suits, are applicable. In the present case, though contentious issues were involved, the Tribunal without framing any issue and taking any evidence on record has merely decided the election petition considering the same as a representation. The Tribunal was deciding substantive rights of the parties. It should not have dealt with the same in slipshod manner. He further submitted that though the petition was stated to be accepted, what was the consequence thereof was not mentioned. The submission was that the issue on merits in the present case is as to in what category the election of the candidates was to be considered. He further submitted that this legal issue has been referred by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 10804 of 2008, titled as Karnail Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, vide order dated 7.1.2009 [2009(5) RCR (Civil) 910] to be considered by a larger Bench.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that if the case of the parties is considered on merits, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. Respondent No. 1 had secured more votes than the appellant in terms of the admitted facts where both had contested elections against each other. No evidence was required to be produced to prove this fact as the material on record before the Tribunal was sufficient. Framing of issues should not be taken to be a ritual to be performed in every case. Substance of the matter is to be seen.;