Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has impugned the order dated 19th July, 2011, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Kota, dismissed the application filed by Petitioner -Defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) HAVING considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the relevant provisions of law as also the impugned order, it is noticed that with regard to the Panchayat Elections held in the year 2008, an election petition came to be filed by the Plaintiff -Respondent against the Petitioner -Defendant. During the pendency of the election petition, the Petitioner -Defendant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure imploring the court to allow him to make an amendment in the written statement. The learned trial court after considering the rival submissions made by the parties, dismissed the application, observing that the application was filed just with a view to procrastinate the election petition. It has further been observed by the learned trial court that election petitions ought to have been decided as early as possible because elections are held for a definite period and if delay is caused in deciding the election petitions, then the purpose of assailing the same would be frustrated. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court is based on pure findings of facts. It is found to have suffered from No. infirmity, conversely it is found to be just and apt.
(3.) JURISDICTION under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised just with a view to upset the pure findings of facts. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 can be invoked only when the impugned order is found to be totally perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice.;