Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jai Singh v. Hawa Singh & Ors - CR-3156-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 364 (25 January 2006)

CR No. 3156 of 2005 (1)


Civil Revision No.3156 of 2005

Date of Decision: 3.02.2006

Jai Singh ..Petitioner.


Hawa Singh and others ..Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.Hari Om Atri, Advocate,

for respondent No.1.

Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate.


The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 25.5.2005 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to file CR No. 3156 of 2005 (2)

written statement.

Respondent No.1 filed election petition under section 176 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 for setting aside the election of the petitioner held on 3.4.2005. The petitioner moved an application in terms of Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code on the ground that the result sheet as well as the order of recount dated 4.4.2005 has not been annexed with the petition and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

It may be noticed that another application was filed by the election petitioner on the date when the impugned order was passed for producing the certified copy of the result sheet. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for the reason that the case is yet at the stage of pleadings and therefore, non-production would not be relevant at this stage, which is required to be examined after the evidence is led by the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of this Court reported as Som Parkash Bansal Vs. Managing Committee, Hindu Higher Secondary School, Kaithaland anaother 2003 (1) Recent Civil Report (C) 270 to contend that the production of a document is mandatory and since the document has not been attached petition is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the CR No. 3156 of 2005 (3)

opinion that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. The application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code is nothing but an attempt to delay the final decision on frivolous ground.

Once the certified copy of the result sheet has been produced in court, the argument that the result has not been produced ceases to have any relevant bearing on the controversy raised by the petitioner.

The argument that the order of recount has not been produced is without any substance. Such order is part of the public record and is required to be produced in evidence during the course of trial. Such document is not a document which is exclusively in possession of the election petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the election petitioner has not produced the relevant document along with the election petition.

In view of above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court with may warrant interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.


(Hemant Gupta)

3.02.2006 Judge



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.