- (1.) Impugned in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 10.05.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Laxmangarh, District Alwar, whereby the evidence of the petitioner-returned candidate (hereinafter 'the RC') has been closed. Mr.Girish Khandelwal counsel for the RC submitted that election of the RC to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kheda Mangal Singh was called in question under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994'), as her class VIII mark-sheet was not allegedly genuine but forged and fabricated. The RC filed reply of denial subsequent to which issues were framed. The evidence of the respondent- election petitioner (hereinafter 'EP') having been recorded by the trial court the RC in the course of his defence evidence moved an application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC to summon Bhagwan Sahay Upadhyay the Head Master of Chirag Adarsh Public School Rajpur Bada (Alwar), as the said witness crucial to the RC's defence was not in his control. Thereupon vide order dated 10.04.2017, the trial court allowed the application and issued summons to the head-master of said school to appear before it with the school record to ascertain whether the RC had the requisite qualification to contest election on the post of Sarpanch. It has been submitted that thereafter despite service of the summons by registered post, the head-master not turning up in court, the RC's defence evidence has been per-emptorily closed. Counsel for the RC submitted that once having exercised its discretion under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC to summon as witness, the head-master of the school who issued the mark-sheet of Class- VIII and TC to the RC and the witness yet not responding and appearing in court with requisite record, the trial court could not have per-emptorily closed the RC's defence evidence. Instead it was incumbent upon the trial court to resort to all of the court's coercive powers for ensuring the presence of the material witness in the RC's defence i.e. Bhagwan Sahay Upadhyay, the head- master of the concerned school. It has been prayed that in the circumstances the order dated 10.05.2017 closing the RC's defence evidence be quashed and set aside and the trial court he directed to invoke its coercive powers for summoning of the said witness alongwith the relevant documents relating to RC's educational qualification of Class-VIII pass which are material to the RC's defence. Mr.Aatish Jain, counsel for the respondent-election petitioner (hereinafter 'EP') submitted that the entire petition is premised on the order dated 10.04.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Laxmangarh District Alwar, whereunder the application under Order16 Rule 1 CPC filed by the RC to summon the head-master of Chirag Adarsh Public School Rajpur Bada (Alwar) as a witness was allowed. It however overlooks the fact that subsequently the said witness not having responded despite service, the trial court had directed again in its discretion that it would be incumbent upon the RC to produce the said witness. Counsel for the EP submitted that thereafter the election petition was listed on 22.04.2017, 25.04.2017, 02.05.2017 and 09.05.2017 before the trial court but the said head-master was not produced as a witness by the RC despite the Court burdening him with that obligation. Hence the order dated 10.05.2017 closing the RC's defence evidence. Neither improperiety, illegality, non-perversity can be attributed to the said order. Counsel further submitted that the witness summoned by RC alongwith the record of the said school is a notorious person against whom multiple FIRs (18 Nos.) have been lodged and following investigation/s charge-sheets filed in several of the FIRs for issuing forged and fabricated mark- sheets to various persons across different Panchayats to supply them educational qualification of Class-VIII to contest elections on the post of Sarpanch. Counsel for the EP submitted that in the instant case FIR bearing no.60/15 Police Station Raini District Alwar for offences under Section 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 120-B IPC, was lodged against the RC's witness Bhagwan Sahay Upadhyay and others and he has been accordingly charge-sheeted therein for issuing a forged mark-sheet to the RC. The witness in issue is likely to be in jail or otherwise absconding, a fact clearly inferable from the fact he has not appeared before the trial court despite service of summons by registered post. Mr.Aatish Jain submitted that the underlying election petition challenging the election of the RC as Sarpanch cannot brook delay for indefinite period of time for any reason including the manufactured reason of non-availability of the RC's witness in her defence. Were this stratagem to succeed, RC would live out the duration of her five year tenure as Sarpanch on this specious ground and possibly manipulated absence of a witness. It was submitted that the trial court's discretion has been judiciously exercised in the facts of the case and ought not to be upseat casually in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard. Considered. From the facts on record it is quite apparent that the witness of the RC is a notorious person against whom multiple cases for issuing forged mark-sheet have been registered and in several of which he has been challaned. I am of the considered view that a party to a litigation is obliged to bring in his witness. Albeit the trial court indeed has the power to summon witness on an appropriate application, yet the matter is in the trial court's discretion. That discretion once exercised can be varied subsequently if the circumstances so warrant by resort to the trial court's inherent power under Section 151 CPC. It was in the instant case justly varied in the facts of the case on 17.04.2017 by the trial court requiring the RC to produce her witness the head- master of the Chirag Adarsh Public School Rajpur Bada (Alwar) Bhagwan Sahay Upadhyay in her defence. That order is not under challenge. Failure of the RC to comply with the aforesaid order on three occasions validly led to the passing of the impugned order dated 10.05.2017 closing her defence evidence. It should be borne in mind that the witness of the RC whom she sought to produce in evidence is a notorious criminal engaged in the business of issuing forged fabricated mark-sheets. Non- appearance by him despite service of summons by registered post cannot accrue to the RC's benefit and freeze the trial during which the RC's five year tenure as Sarpanch would run out. The primary responsibility to bring their respective witness to court is of the parties to the litigation. Any other view would be a sure feed to stratagems by the litigating party so interested to delay and derail trials. In the facts of the case I am disinclined to interfere in the impugned order. I therefore find no force in the petition. Dismissed. ;