- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12-4-2012 passed by the District Judge Dholpur in election petition No.32/2010. Learned District Judge has under the impugned order aforesaid closed defence evidence in election petition before him for the reason that in spite of earlier opportunities by way of adjournment of the case on cost the petitioner-defendant was seeking a further adjournment, which was unjustified and absolutely unwarranted. Learned District Judge has recorded the fact that the petition had been pending for over a year since 9-2-2011 for the defence evidence and repeated adjournments were unduly prolonging the trial of the case.
(2.) ORDINARILY, it is not for this court in the exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the discretion of the courts below exercised in the course of trial-more so on matters of adjournment and refusal of adjournments. That is the prerogative of the Presiding Officer who runs the trial and needs to control it. The jurisdiction of this court is to interfere only with the orders passed by the courts below which are shockingly perverse, or vitiated by misdirection in law. None of the two situations obtain in the present case. The impugned order is reasonable order recording the fact of earlier adjournments even with costs and the absence of good reason for another. However, as the counsel for the respondent-election petitioner Mr. Anil Jain submits that in the event the petitioner-defendant were to be allowed one more opportunity on exemplary cost, he would have no objection to the order dated 12-4-2012 passed by the District Judge being set aside, not so much on any legal ground, but for reasons of a general sense of justice. In view of the submission of Mr.Anil Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-election petitioner, I would set aside the order dated 12-4-2012 passed by the District Judge, Dholpur in election petition No.32/2010 and allow the petitioner-defendant an opportunity for expeditiously examining his witnesses, in respect of whom a list has been submitted, in accordance with law. This opportunity is being granted to petitioner-defendant on cost of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to election petitioner prior to commencement of the evidence of defendant. This order is no reflection on the merits of the order of the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge shall exercise his discretion in the further course of trial as may be warranted from time to time. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Stay application also stands dismissed. ;