- (1.) THE petition has been filed against the order dated 26-5-2012 passed by the District Judge Dholpur (herein after 'the Trial court') in Election Petition No.33/2012, dismissing an application filed by petitioner- returned candidate (herein after 'the returned candidate') seeking in the course of an election petition laid under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, a direction from the trial court that DNA tests of the returned candidate and two children alleged to be hers (entailing her disqualification under Section 19(l) of the 1994 Act) be held such that a proper defence in the election petition can be laid at her instance.
(2.) THE trial court in the impugned order dated 26-5-2012 held that the burden was on the election petitioner (respondent herein) to prove that the returned candidate was disqualified in terms of Section 19(l) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It was further held that in any event of the matter if the returned candidate required to bring any evidence on her part before the trial court as a defence to the election petition, it was for her to have the requisite DNA tests conducted and bring the same on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order dated 26-5-2012. I am of the considered view that it was not the function of the trial court to facilitate obtaining of evidence for either of the parties-whether it be the election petitioner or the returned candidate. It is for the respective parties before the trial court to lay their evidence, where upon the trial court is to adjudicate the issues before it. The trial court was right in holding that in any event if the petitioner returned candidate intended to bring the report of DNA tests in respect of herself and the two children alleged to be hers, she was free to obtain such a report before the trial court-on her own without the intermediation of the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision of law, wherein an application such as the one moved by the petitioner returned candidate could be filed. The application before the trial court was merely founded on a vague notion of "justice". In my considered view the entire process adopted by the petitioner returned candidate in moving an absurd application in seeking court assistance in collecting defence evidence was just to delay the trial of the election petition. I find no perversity and misdirection in law in the impugned order dated 26-5-2012 passed by the trial court. The writ petition is without merit and the same is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.;