Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kudleppa Chittaragi, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunagund, in Election Petition No.01/2022. The impugned order rejected IA No.15 filed by the petitioner seeking permission to lead additional evidence on an additional issue framed in the election petition. The petitioner contended that the additional issue was framed after he had closed his evidence, and therefore, he needed an opportunity to lead evidence on that issue. The respondents opposed the application. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the trial court ought to have allowed the application to provide a fair opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his case. The court noted that the additional issue was framed after the closure of evidence, and the petitioner could not be faulted for not having led evidence on it earlier. The High Court quashed the impugned order and allowed IA No.15, permitting the petitioner to lead additional evidence on the additional issue. The court directed the trial court to fix a date for the petitioner's evidence and proceed with the election petition expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Additional Evidence - Order XVIII Rule 17A CPC - Section 83 Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The petitioner sought to lead additional evidence on an additional issue framed in the election petition - The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had already closed his evidence - The High Court held that the trial court ought to have allowed the application to afford a fair opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his case, especially when the additional issue was framed after the closure of evidence - The impugned order was quashed and the application was allowed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for leading additional evidence on the additional issue framed in an election petition.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 16.12.2024, and allowed IA No.15, permitting the petitioner to lead additional evidence on the additional issue. The trial court was directed to fix a date for the petitioner's evidence and proceed with the election petition expeditiously.
Law Points
- Election petition
- additional evidence
- Order XVIII Rule 17A CPC
- Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- liberal approach
- opportunity to lead evidence
