Gopal Singh Vs. the Election Tribunal-cum-cj(Sd) No. 3 and ors.

Gopal Singh vs The Election Tribunal-cum-cj(Sd) No. 3 and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Oct 09, 2007

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/771797

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/771797
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Govind Mathur, J.
Decided On: Oct 09, 2007
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6387/2007
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India - Article 227--Election petition--Amendment of issue--Election petition filed by respondent--Five issues were framed and out of those onus to prove two issues on one 'D'--'D' was party to election petition, however he was subsequently deleted from array of respondents--Petitioner preferred appl...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gopal Singh

Respondent

The Election Tribunal-cum-cj(Sd) No. 3 and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 2008(1)WLN442

Excerpt

constitution of india - article 227--election petition--amendment of issue--election petition filed by respondent--five issues were framed and out of those onus to prove two issues on one 'd'--'d' was party to election petition, however he was subsequently deleted from array of respondents--petitioner preferred application for amendment of issues--election tribunal rejected application on ground that issue those were to be proved by 'd' can very well be established--tribunal also held that application was filed at a belated stage--entire evidence has been completed and election petition is fixed for final hearing--held, election tribunal was justified in rejecting application filed by petitioner for seeking amendment of issues.;writ petition dismissed. - - 3. by the order impugned the election tribunal rejected the application on the count that the issues those were to be proved by shri durg singh can very well be established while considering the issue no. 4 and 5 those were to be proved by shri durg singh can certainly be very well examined while deciding the issues no......mathur, j.1. by this petition for writ validity, propriety and correctness of the order dt. 24.09.2007 is questioned whereby learned election tribunal rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for seeking amendment of issues.2. in brief, facts of the case are that in an election petition preferred by respondent khinya ram five issues were framed and out of those onus to prove two issues was on one shri durg singh. shri durg singh was a party to the election petition, however, he was subsequently deleted from the array of the respondents and, therefore, the returned candidate (present petitioner) preferred an application for amendment of issues and also to put onus on him to prove the issues those were required to be established by shri durg singh.3. by the order impugned the election tribunal rejected the application on the count that the issues those were to be proved by shri durg singh can very well be established while considering the issue no. 2. the election tribunal also held the application deserves rejection being filed at a belated stage.4. the contentions of counsel for the petitioner while giving challenge to the order impugned dt. 24.09.2007 are that after deletion of shri durg singh from the array of the respondents permission should have been granted to the petitioner to establish the important issue regarding eligibility of election petitioner shri khinya ram for contesting the election and also on the ground that amendment of issues can be sought at any stage.5. in response, it is pointed out by counsel for the respondents that as a matter of fact entire evidence has been completed and the election petition is fixed for final hearing. the petitioner for one or other reason want to prolong the proceedings of the election petition and present petition for writ is only a part of that tactics.6. i have examined the order impugned and also perused the record available.7. the issues no. 4 and 5 those were to be proved by shri durg singh can.....

Full Judgment

Govind Mathur, J.

1. By this petition for writ validity, propriety and correctness of the order dt. 24.09.2007 is questioned whereby learned Election Tribunal rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for seeking amendment of issues.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that in an election petition preferred by respondent Khinya Ram five issues were framed and out of those onus to prove two issues was on one Shri Durg Singh. Shri Durg Singh was a party to the election petition, however, he was subsequently deleted from the array of the respondents and, therefore, the returned candidate (present petitioner) preferred an application for amendment of issues and also to put onus on him to prove the issues those were required to be established by Shri Durg Singh.

3. By the order impugned the Election Tribunal rejected the application on the count that the issues those were to be proved by Shri Durg Singh can very well be established while considering the issue No. 2. The Election Tribunal also held the application deserves rejection being filed at a belated stage.

4. The contentions of counsel for the petitioner while giving challenge to the order impugned dt. 24.09.2007 are that after deletion of Shri Durg Singh from the array of the respondents permission should have been granted to the petitioner to establish the important issue regarding eligibility of election petitioner Shri Khinya Ram for contesting the election and also on the ground that amendment of issues can be sought at any stage.

5. In response, it is pointed out by counsel for the respondents that as a matter of fact entire evidence has been completed and the election petition is fixed for final hearing. The petitioner for one or other reason want to prolong the proceedings of the election petition and present petition for writ is only a part of that tactics.

6. I have examined the order impugned and also perused the record available.

7. The issues No. 4 and 5 those were to be proved by Shri Durg Singh can certainly be very well examined while deciding the issues No. 1 and 2. The issue No. 2 relates to alleged wrong denial of acceptance of nomination paper and i.e. quite akin to the nature of the issue No. 4. In such circumstances, I do not find any error in the order impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2007 Same Parties Gopal Singh vs The Election Tribunal-cum-cj(Sd) No. 3 and ors. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Govind Mathur, J.

Land Acquisition