ALOK SHARMA, J. - (1.) The only prayer of the petitioner is that the District Judge, Karauli be directed to conclude the trial of the election petition No.55/2015 titled as Smt. Sangeeta Meena Vs. Rameshi Meena & Ors. as expeditiously as possible. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 480, wherein it has been held: -
(2.) The delaying tactics adopted by the defendants in law courts are now proverbial as they do stand to gain by delay. This is more so in election disputes because by delaying the trial of election petition, the successful candidate may succeed in enjoying the substantial part, if not in its entirety, the term for which he was elected even though he may lose the battle at the end. Therefore, the judge trying the case must handle the prayer for adjournment with firmness.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party has been served and there is no obstruction to expediting the trial in the election petition filed under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder. Yet the trial is proceeding at a leisurely pace and the case is being adjourned on the defendant's mere askance and to her benefit.;