Holding

A party may examine witnesses kept present without a court summons under Rule IA, and the court may refuse only if it exercises the discretion under the proviso to Sec 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Summary

Mange Ram, the petitioner, challenged the election of Brij Mohan to the Haryana Legislative Assembly by filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. During the trial he sought to examine a large number of witnesses he had kept present in court, but whose names were not included in the list of witnesses filed under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court refused to allow examination on the ground that the names and the purpose of examination were not disclosed in the list. The Supreme Court held that a party may produce and examine witnesses without a court summons under Rule IA of Order XVI irrespective of whether their names appear in the list, and that the court can decline to examine only if it invokes the discretion granted by the proviso to Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (i.e., the evidence is immaterial, frivolous or intended to delay). Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, permitting the petitioner to examine all his witnesses within a stipulated period.

Issues considered

The party’s right to examine witnesses kept present in court when their names are not listed under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC.
Whether Rule IA permits production of witnesses without summons irrespective of the list requirement.
Whether the court may refuse to examine such witnesses under the proviso to Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XVI Rule 1 sub‑rule (1), s. Order XVI Rule 1 sub‑rule (2), s. Order XVI Rule 1 sub‑rule (3), s. Rule IA
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 2
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 81, s. 87

Subjects

election petitionwitness listRule IAOrder XVIsummonsRepresentation of the People Actcivil procedureevidencehigh court discretion

Judgment

MANGE RAM
A
v.
BRIJ MOHAN AND OTHERS
•
August 3, 1983
B
(D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0. XVl, rs.- I and JA-Trial of election
petition-Right to bring any witness, withoilt applying for sum111ons, for exami-
nation under r. JA-.Scope of-Can court decline to examine witnesses kept
present by party on the sole ground thai' their names have not been set out in the C
list filed in compliance with r. I?

Sub-r. (1) of r. 1 of 0. XVI,. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 casts.an
obligation on every party to a proceeding to present a list of witnesses whom
it proposes to call and to obtain summonses to such persons for their atten-
dance in court; sub-r. (2) requires that the party seeking such assistance from
the court must make an application stating the purpose for which the witness D
·is proposed to be summoned; .and sub·r. (J) confers· a discretion on the court
to permit a party to summon· through court or otherwise any witness other
than those whose names appear in the list submitted· under sub-r. (1), if such
party shows sufficient cause foi the omission to mention the name of such
- --- witness in the said list.· Rule lA ·of 0. XVI enables a party to bring in any
witness without applying for summons under r. 1 but this enabling provision is
E
subject to sub-~. (3) of r. I. Rule 22 of the "Rules of Procedure and Guidance
in the matter of trial of Election Petition under ·Part VI of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951" of the Punjab and Haryana High Court merely
re-enacts sub-rs. (1) and (2) of r. 1 of 0, XVI, C.P.C.

Sub-s. (1) of s. 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 makes
0. XVI, C.P.C. applicable· to the trial of election petitions ·and the proviso F
thereto gives the High Court the discretion to r~fuse to exainine ·any
Witness if it is of the opinion that the evidence of such witness is not
material or that the party tendering such witness .is doing so on. ·ffivolous
grounds or with a view to delay the proc~edings.

The appellant, who was the petitioner !n an election petition, had filed G
an application seeking permission to p~odu~e and examine witnesses whose
names were set out in the application and the court had 'passed appropriate
orders thereon. When the,f:Ourt was recording the evidence of the appelJant,
he submitted another list of witnesses whom he had kept present in the Court
for being exam~ned, but the court rejected the sa1ne for two reasons; (i) that
the appellant had not mentioned their names in the application made by him H
earlier; and (ii) that there was no mention of the purpose for which they"were
being offered for examination. The app~llant challenged the validity of the
Goru •ts order.
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (i9S3j 3 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal,
A
HELD : It is obligatory on the party to a proceeding to file the list ~r
witnesses wi.th the gist of evidence and to make an application for issue of
summons as provided in \sub-rs. (I) and (2) of r. 1, o. XVI only where the
party wants the assistance of the court to procure the presence of witnesses;
but w~ere the party is in a position to produce its witnesses without the asSis-
tance of the court, it can do so under r. !A irrespective of the fact whether the
B
names of such witnesses are mentioned in the list or not and the court cannot
decline to examine them unless it proposes to act under tJle proviso to sub-s. (1)
ofs. 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (531G-H,532 A]

(i) The obligation to file a list of witnesses with the gist of evidence of
each Witness within the time prescribed under sub-r. (I) of r. I, O. XVI is in
tespeCt Of those witnesses to procure wh6se presence the assistance of -the
court is necessary. And, this ought to be -so because the court wants to be
satisfte:d about the necessity and relevance of the evidence of Such witness
whose presence will be procured with the assistance of the court. If mere
omission to mention the name of a witness in the list envisaged by sub-r. (1)
of r. 1 would enable the court to decline to examine such 'a witness, r. ·IA
wOuld not have omitted to mention that only those witnesses kept present
D could be examined whose names ate n1ention'ed in the list envisaged by sub-r.
(1) Of r. 1 and who can be produced without the assiStance of the court. The
marginal note ofr IA r'eads: "Production of witnesses· without summons" and
the rule proceeds to enable a party to bring any witness to give evidence or
produce documents without applying for summons under r. 1. If it was
iml)Iicit in r. IA that it enables the party· to examine only those witnesses
E whose names are mentioned in the list filed under Sub-r. (1) of r. I wh6'm the
party would produce before the court without the assistance of thC court, it was .
not necessary to provide in r. IA that the party mxy bring any witness Without
applying for summons under r. I. [533 B-HJ ·

(ii) The contention that r. IA is subject to sub-r. (3) of r. 1 and there-
F fore _the court must ascertain how far sub-r. (3) would carve out an exception to
the eniibling provision contained in r. IA cannot be accepted. Sub-r. (3) of r. I
and r. IA operate in two different areas and cater ~to two different situations.
Sub-r. (3) of r. l confers a wider jurisdiction on the court to cater to a situa-
tion ·where the party has failed to name the witness in the list and yet iS unable
to produce biln on its own under r. lA and seeks the assistance of the court
. under sub-r. (3) of r. 1 to procure the presence of the witness. [534 C-E]
G
(ii) Failure to comply With the sum~1ons served on a person entails
certain consequences in law as provided in r. 10 of O. XVI: the court may
issue a proclamation requiring him to attend to give evidence or to produce
the document at a time and place named therein, or issue a warrant for his
H arrest with" or without bail. or impose a fine on him, or order his property to
be attached and sold. In view ·.of these legal consequences ensuing from the ·
j~suance of a summons by the court and failure to comply with the same, the
scheme of rs. I and IA of O. XVI and r. 22 of the Rules framed by the High
MANGE RAM v. BRii MOHAN (Dtsai, i.) s21
Court envisaged the filing of a List only in tsepect of Witnesses whom the partie~
desire to examine and procure preSence with the assistance of the Co'urt. Th• A
advance fiiing of list is necessary because sun1moning of witnesses by court is
a time-consuming process. [532 D-HJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4379 of
1983.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated the I Ith January, 1983 of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Election
Petition No. 3 of 1982.

S N. Kacker and V. Mayakrishan for the Appellant. ·
c
A. K. Sen and Rathin Das for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

· DESAI, J. On May 3, 1983 we made the following order : D

·"Special leave granted. The appeal is allowed.

The order of the High Court refusing the request of
the appellant to examine his 54 witnesses who, according E
to him, were kept present is varied. The election peti·
tioner-appellant herein shall produce all those witnesses
and examine all or any of them whomsover he wants to
examine out of them and in respect of whom, the Court
did not grant permission to examine. The examination
shall be taken up day to day. No Court assistance need F
be rendered for procuring the presence of all or any of
them and the examination shall be completed within a
span of 7 days commenci,1g from the .date on which

,-
the High Court commences examination of witnesses.·
Subject to the convenience of the learned Judge and G
the parties recording of evidence shall be taken up on this
side of the summer vacation of the High Court.
j
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be · no
order as to costs. Reasons to foliow." H

Here are the reasons.
528 SUPRllM!i COURT RllPORTS [!9s3j 3s.c.R.
Appellant Shri Mange Ram contested the election to Haryana
A . Legislative Assembly from Jind Legislative Assembly constituency.
14 persons offered themselves as.candidates for the election. One
Shri Brij Mohan, Ist respondent was declared elected. Appellant
was defeated. The remaining candidates lost their deposits.
Appellant called in question the. election of the 1st respondent (the \.
returned candidate) by presenting an election petition under Sec. 81 I ')
B
of the Representation of People Act 1951 ('1951 Act' for short). To
this petition, the returned candidate as well as all other candidates
who lost the election were impleaded as parties. In the election
petition, charges of corrupt practice and irregularities and illegalities ;
in the conduct of election were made. The returned candidate con-
c tested the petition. After going through the pleadings of the parties,
the Court ascertained the points on which parties were at variance
and framed appropriate issues. The election petition reached the
stage of recording evidence.

It appears an application was filed by the appeHant-election
D petitioner seeking permission to produce and examine witnesses whose
names were set out in the application. It was averred in the appli:
cation that the names of the witnesses whom he desires to produce
are already mentioned in the appropriate paragraphs of the election
petition and that the petitioner would keep the w;tnesses present. The
E learned Judge to whom the election petition was assigned made an
order on November.29, 1982 that as and when <>itnesses are produced,
appropriate orders will be passed determining whether the witnesses
could or could not be produced. In the meantime, the evidence of
election petitioner was being recorded. It appears that again on '
January JI, 1983, petitioner submitted a list of witnesses intimating
F to the Court that he desires to examine them. This was objected to
by the returned candidate. The learned Judge· after hearing the
parties made ari order upholding the objection raised by the returned 0

candidate that the purpose for which the witnesses were offered is not
mentioned in the list an'd therefore, the election petitioner could .not
G be permitted to examine such witnesses. A further observation was
made by the Court that the election petitioner could not be allowed
to examine more .witnes,es whose names had not been mentioned in
the list of witnesses submitted in accordance :.vith the relevant provi-
sions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the rules framed by the
H High Court. Accordingly, the learned Judge held that except Bahre
son of Sher Singh, no other witness couid be examined and that as
soon as the evidence of the afore-mentioned witness was recorded,
MANGB RAM v. BRIJ MOHAN (Desai, J.) 529

the Court would proceed to record the evidence on behalf of the
returned candidate ; and thereafter the matter will be set down for A
bearing oral arguments of the learned counsel of either side. It is
this order which was questioned in this appeal by special leave.

An election petition presented under Sec. 81 of the '1951 Act'
must satisfy the requirements of Secs. 83 a.nd 84. Chapter III iri B
Part IV of the '19 51 Act' lays down the procedure for trial of election
petitions. Sec. 87 which is material for'the present purpose reads as
under: ·

87. Procedure before the High Court-(!} Subject to
j the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder c
every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as
nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure appli-
cable under the Code of Civil ·Procedure, 1908·(5 of 1908)
to the trial of suits :
D
Provided that the High Court shall have the discretion
to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine
any witness or witnesses if 'it is of the opinion that the
evidence of such witness or witnesses is not materiah for
the decision of the petition or that the party tendering
such witness or witnesses is doing so on frivolous grounds E
or with a view to delay the proceedi.ngs.

(2) The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(I of 1872), shall, subject to the provisions of this Act be
deemed to apply in all respects to the trial of any election F
petition.''

Order XVI Rule I which is relied-upon on behalf_ of the
returned candidate reads as under :
G
"I, List of witnesses and summons to Witnesses-
( I) On or before such date as the Court may appoint,
) . and not later than fifteen days after the dat.e on which the.
issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list
of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give H
evidence or to produce documents, and obtain summonses
to such persons
'
for
. their
.. attendance
. . in. Court.
' ' . ' '"
530 SUPREME COURT PEPORTS (1983] 2 S.C.R.

(2) A party desirous of.obtaining any summons for
A the attendance of any person shall fife in Court an appli-
cation stating therein the purpose for which the witness is
proposed to be summoned.
\.
(3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, I
perm\! a party to c~ll, wheth~r by summoning through ]
B Court or otherwise, a,ny witness, other thari those whose
names al'l'ear in the list.referred to in sub-rule(!), if such
party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention
the name of such witness in the said list.

C (4) Subject to the-provisions of sub-rule (2), sum•
mouses referred to in this rule may be obtained by the
parties on an application to the Court or to such officer
as may be appointed by the Court in this behalf.

IA. Production of.witnesses without summons-Sub-
D ject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, any party
to the suit may, .without applying for summons under
rule 1, bring any witness to give evidence or to produce
documents." ·
•
E Rule IA was inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 1956. Both Rule I and IA have been drastically amended by
the Amending Act, 1976 which came into force on Febuary I, 1977.
Rules I and IA extracted hereinabove are the amended rules in force
from Febuary 1, 1977.
F
• At the hearing of the appeal, a statement was made that the
Punjab and Haryana High Court has introduced a proviso to sub-
rule (4) of Rule I of Order XVI. It reads as under :

"Provided that no party who has begun to call his
G
witnesses shall be entitled to obtain process to enforce
the attendance of any witness against whom process has
not previously issued, or to produce any witness not named
in a list, which must be filed in Court ·on or before the
H date on which the hearing of evidence oJP·bis behalf com-
mences and before· the actual commencement. of the
hearing of such evidence without any order of the Court
made in writing and stating the reasons therefor."
MANGE RAM v. BRIJ MOHAN (Desai, J.) 531

In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses 27 and 35 of the
Letters Patent and Sec: 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, A
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has framed mies styled as
'Rules of Procedure and Guidance in the matter of trial of Election
Petitions under Part VI of the Representation of the.People Act, 1951'

-r ( (High Court Rules for short). Rule 22 of the afore-mentioned mies
is relevant. It reads as under : B
"22(1) A party desirous of requiring the attendance
·of his witnesses at the trial of the petition through the
process of the High Court shall, within fifteen days of the
settlement of the issues, make an application for the pur·
pose. to the "Re~strar. The said application shall contain
c
the names of the said witnesses and a gist of the facts to
be proved by each one of them. A copy of the said
application shall, also, be delivered by the party or his
Advocate to the Advocate for the opposite party or if the
same is not represented by an Advocate, to the said party, D
at the same time it is made to the Registrar ................. "

The neat question of law is : where a party to a proceedin1
does not wish to have the assistance of the Court for· the purpose of
procuring the attendance of a witness or witnesses, could he be denied E
the privilege of examining witnesses kept present by him ·on the date
fixed for recording his evidence, on the sole ground that the names of
the witnesses and the gist of evidence have not been set out in the
list which may or ought to have been filed in compliance with Order
XVI Rule· 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?

Sub-rule (I) of "Rule 1 of Order XVI casts an obligation on
every party to a proceeding to present a list of witnesses whom it
proposes to call either to give evidence or to produce documents
and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court.
G
..... Sub-rule (2) requires that the parties seeking the assistance of ihe
Court for procuring the attendence of a witness must make an
application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is pro-
posed to be summoned. Snb-rule (3) confers a discretion on the
Conrt to permit. a par,ty to summon throngh Court or otherwise any
witness. other than those whose names appear in the list submitted in
H
sub-rule(!), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to
wention the name of such witness jn the said !is\. R111e !A in ils
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 3 s.c.R.

A a
amended form in force ;ince 1977 enables party to bring any wit-
ness to give e~idence or to produce documents but this enabling
prov1S1on is subject to . the provision contained in sub-rule (3) of
Rule 1 of Order XVI. . If a reference to Rule 22 of the High Court
Rules is recalled at this stage, it merely reenacts sub-rule (2) of Rule
I of Order XVI. '
B
If the requirements of tbese provisions are 'conjointly read and
properly analysed, it clearly transpires that the obligation to supply
the list as well as the gist of the evidence of each witness whose name
is entered in the list has to be carried out in respect of those witnesses
c for procuring whose attendance the party needs the assistance of the
Court. When a summons is im:cd 'by the Court for procuring th•
presence of a witness, 'it has certain consequences in law. If the
summons is served and the person served fails to comply with the
same, certain consequences in faw ensue as provided in Rule IO of
Order XVI. The consequence is that where the witness summoned
D either to give evidence .or to produce documents fails to attend or to
produce the documents in compliance with such summons, the Court
on being satisfied of the service as provided therein and is further
satisfied that the person bas without lawful excuse failed to honour
the summons, the Court may issue is a proclamation requiring him
E
a
to' attend to give evidence or to produce the document at time and
place to be named therein; and a copy of such proclamation shall be
affixed in the manner therein provided. Simultaneously, the Court.
may, in its discretion, issue a warrant, either with or without bail, for
·the .arre~t of such person, and may make an order for the attachment
of his property for such amount as it thinks fit. Fven if thereafter
F the witness fails to appear, the Court may impose upon him such
fine not exceeding five hundred rupees as it thinks fit, having regard
to his condition in life and all the circumstances of the case, and may
order his property, or any part, thereof, to be attached and sold as
provided in Rule 12 of Order XVI. In view of this legal consequence
G ensuing from the issuance of a summons by the Court and. failure to
comply with the same, the scheme of Rules l, I A of Ordi:r XVI and
Rule 22 of the Rules framed by the High Court clearly envisaged
filing of a ii st only in respect of witnesses whom the parties desir_e to
examine and procure presence with .the assistance of the Court. There,
· however, remains an area where if the party to a proceeding does not
H desire the assistance of the Court for procuring the presence of a
witness, obviously the party can produce such witness on the date of
'
MANGE RAM v; BRIJ MOHAN (Desai, J.) 533

bearing and the Court ·cannot decline to examine the witness unless
the Court proposes to act under the proviso to sub-sec. Q) of Sec. A.
87 of the '1951 Act' which enables the Court for reasons to be recor-
ded in writing, to refuse to examine any witness or witnesses if it is
of the opinion that the evidence of such witness or witnesses is not
material for the decision of the petition or that the party tendering
such witness or witnesses is·doing so on frivolous grounds or with a B
view to delay the proceedings, It, therefore, unquestionably trans-
pires that the obligation to supply the list of witnesses within the time
prescribed under sub-rule (I} of Rule 1 of Order XVI is in respect of
witnessses to procure whose presence the assistance of the Court is
neceisary .. And this ought to be so because the Court wants to be
satisfied about the necessity and relevance of the evidence of such c
witness whose presence will be procured with the assistance of the
Court. This not only explains the necessity of setting out the names
of witnesses in the list but also the gist of evidence of each witness.
If mere omission to mention the name of a witness in the list
envisaged by sub-rule (I) of Rule 1 of Order XVI would enable the
D
Court to decline to examine such witness, Rule IA of Order XVI
would not have omitted to mention that only those witnesses kept
present could be examined whose names are mentioned in the list
envisaged by sub-rule (I) and who can be produced without the
assistance of the Court. Viewed from this angle, Rule IA becomes
wholly redundant. If it is obligatory upon the party to mention the
names of all witnesses irrespective of the fact whether some or all of
them are to be summoned and even the names of those whom the
party desires to produce without the assistance ofthe Court are also
required to be mentioned in the list on the pain that they may not be
permitted to be examined, Rule IA would have given a clear legis-
lative exposition in that behalf and the marginal 'note of Rule IA
clearly negatives this suggestion. Marginal note of Rule lA reads
as 'Production of witnesses without summons' and the rule proceeds
to enable a party to bring any ~itness to give evidence or to produce
documents without applying for summons under Rule 1. If it was
implicit in Rule IA that it only enables the party to examine only G
those witnesses whose names are mentioned in the list filed under sub-
rule {I) of Rule 1 whom the party would produce before the Court
without the assistance of the Court, it was not necessary to provide
in Rule lA that the party may bring any witness to give evidence
or to produce documents without applying for summons under H"
Rule I. Rule IA of Order XVI clearly brings to surface the two
situations in which the two rules operate. Where the party wants
A,
534 SUPREME'COU!i.T li.EPO!i.TS [1983] 3 s.c.R..

the assistance oHhe Court to procure presence of a witness on being
--
summoned through the Court, it is obligatory on the party to file the
list with the gist of evidence of witness in the Court as directed by
sub-rule (I) of Rule I and make an application as provided by sub-
rule (2) of Rule I. But where the party would be in a position to
produce its witnesses without the .assistance of the Court, it can do
so under Rule IA of Order XVI irrespective of the fact whether the
B
name of such witness is mentioned in the list or not. ·

' · It was, however. contended that Rule IA is subject to sub-rule
(3) of Rule I and therefore, the Court must ascertain how far
sub-rule (3) would carve out an exception to the . enabling provision
C-
contained in Rule· IA. Th.ere is no inner contradiction between
sub-rule (1) of Rule J and Rule IA of Order XVJ. Sub-rule .(3) of
Rule I of Order XVI confers a wider jurisdiction on the Court to cater
to a situation where the party has failed to name the witness in the
list and yet the party is unable to produce him or her on his own
D under Rule IA and in such a situation the party of necessity has to
seek the assistance of the Court under sub-rule (3) to procure the . .,._
(

presence of the witness and the Court may 'if it is satisfied that the
party has sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of
such witness in the list filed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1, the Court
E may still extend its assistance for procuring the presence of such a
witness by issuing a summons through the Court or otherwise which
ordinarily the Court would not extend for procuring the attendance
of a witness whose name is not shown in the list. Therefore, sub-
rule (3) of Rule I and Rule 1A operate in two different areas and
F cater to. two different situations.

The analysis of the relevant provisions would clearly bring out
the underlying scheme under Order XVI Rules I and IA, and .Rulo
22 of the High Court Rules would not derogate from such scheme.
·The scheme is that after the Court framed issues which gives notice
G to the parties what facts they have to. prove for "ucceeding in the
matter which notice would enable the parties to determine what
evidence oral and documentary it would like to lead, the party
should file a list of witnesses with the gist of evidence of each witness
in the Court within the time prescribed by sub-rule (!). This advance
H filing of list is necessary because summoning the .witnes.ses by tho
Court is a time consuming process and to avoid the avoidable delay
an obligation is cast on the party to file a list of witnesses who•e
presence the part¥ desires to proc11re with the assistance of th~
MANGE RAM v. BRIJ MOHAN (Desa~ J.) 53.5

Court. But if ou the date fixed for recording the evidence, the party .
is able to keep his witnesses ·present despite the fact that the names A
of the witnesses are not shown in the list filed under sub-rule (I) of
Rule I, the party would be entitled to examine these witnesses and
to prodm:e documents through the witnesses who are called to
., ( produce documents under Rule IA. The only jurisdiction the
.A
Court has to decline to examine the witness is the one ·set out in
B
proviso to Sec. 87 (I) of' 1951 Act',. the discretion being confined
to refusing to examine witnesses on the ·ground that the evidence is
either frivolous or vexatious or the evidence is led to delay the
proceedings. Save this the Court has no jurisdiction to decline
to examine the witness produced by the party and kept present when
the evidence of the party is being recorded and is not closed, and the c
Court has no jurisdiction to refuse to examine the witness who is
present in the Court on the short ground that the name of the
witness was not mentioned in the list filed under sub-rule (I) ·of Rule
I of Order XVI. ' This scheme clearly emerges from the various
provisions herein discussed..
D
If the scheme of the various provisions is as herein discussed,
obviously, the order of the learned Judge is wholly unsustainable.
He declined to examine the witness by accepting the submission of
the returned candidate that the names of. the witnesses whom the
appellant kept present in the Court were not mentioned in the list. E
This is the only ground on which the learned Judge decHned• to
permit the. appellant to examine his witnesses who were kept present
in the Court and this ground is utterly unsustainable. Therefore, the
order of the learned Judge had to be quashed and was accordingly
quashed and the appeal was allowed.
F
H.L.C. . Appeal allowed.

_..