Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

N.K.AJESH KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS versus RAMESHAN GOPALAN S/O.GOPALAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


N.K.AJESH KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS v. RAMESHAN GOPALAN S/O.GOPALAN - WP(C) No. 5860 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 10763 (20 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5860 of 2007()

1. N.K.AJESH KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. RAMESHAN GOPALAN S/O.GOPALAN,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.PRASANTH

For Respondent :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :20/06/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C)No. 5860 OF 2007 V

Dated this the 20th June, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Munsiff, Pala in I.A.311/07 in Election O.P 5/05. The dispute revolves round about the vote cast by one Ouseph, S/o. Devasia, Pazdinjaraymundiyaniyil house. It is the contention that the said person is dead and a vote has been cast in his name. So the question that has to be considered and determined by the court are:- (i) Whether the said Ouseph is dead or alive on the date of casting the vote and (ii) Whether any vote has been cast in the name of Ouseph by anybody and if so by whom and what will be the impact of the same in the election process. I am told that the difference of vote is only one. The trial court found that there is prima facie evidence in the form of Ext.A2 and also the oral evidence of P.W.1 to show that Ouseph is dead. When it is so it is incumbent upon the court to find out whether a vote has been cast by Ouseph and in whose favour. Therefore, that is what is precisely ordered to be done by the court. It cannot found fault with. But, at the same time, the respondents viz., the writ petitioner herein is yet to tender evidence and it is within his realm to prove that the said Ouseph is not dead and the vote has WPC 5860/07 2 been cast by him. So only after permitting both sides to adduce evidence as to the factum of the death of Ouseph the court has to arrive at a decision and thereafter to find out whether anybody has done the vote in the name of Ouseph and if so, whether it is valid or invalid. So, at this stage the order passed by the Munsiff does not call for interference. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with the observations made above. Copy of the order may be sent to the concerned Munsiff for further proceedings in the election petition. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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