JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 13-11-84 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Atma Ram filed an election petition in the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur district Jaipur challenging the election of appellant Jagdish Prasad for the office of Ward No. 3 of Manoharpur Municipality. The petitioner Atma Ram closed his evidence on 14-12-83 and thereafter, the case was fixed on 7-1-84 for the evidence of non- petitioner, i.e. Jagdish Prasad. The case was adjourned from time to time and ultimately the application filed by Jagdish Prasad for examining his to witnesses, viz. Sant Kumar Sharma and Dhirendra Chaturvedi, was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 6-9-84. Jagdish Prasad as such filed a writ petition on 18-9-84, praying that the order of the Tribunal dated 6-9-84 be quashed and the Tribunal be directed to call the witnesses Sant Kumar and Dhirendra Chaturvedi, who were Government servants and were material witnesses of the case. It was further prayed that the summons may be issued against the aforesaid witnesses to compel them to appear before the election tribunal to give evidence. It was also prayed that the evidence of Mohd. Khan and Gani Khan may also be ordered to be recorded, who were bound by the court to give evidence, but subsequently absented themselves. 3. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 13-11-84 holding that it was not proper for this court to interfere with the interlocutory order of the learned Civil Judge acting as election tribunal under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. It was further observed by the learned single Judge that he did not find that any error of jurisdiction was committed by the learned Civil Judge in closing the petitioner's evidence. It was further observed that if it was subsequently found that non-summoning of these two witnesses by the learned Civil Judge was not legally justified and that the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice, it will always be open to this Court or any other superior court to interfere and grant adequate relief to the petitioner. 4. In these circumstances, the present special appeal has been filed by Jagdish Prasad. 5. 4. In these circumstances, the present special appeal has been filed by Jagdish Prasad. 5. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that no remedy was available to the appellant against the impugned order at this stage and an irreparable loss would be caused to him in case the appellant would not be permitted to examine the aforesaid two witnesses, viz. Sant Kumar and Dhirendra Chaturvedi, who are Government servants and are material witnesses. It was further submitted that the appellant was not at fault as he was filing the process fee and summons to call these witnesses from the very beginning and Sant Kumar had also been served once for 18-2-84, but he did not appear in the court in spite of service. It was further submitted that the question relates to re-counting of ballot papers and the evidence of Sant Kumar, who was the Returning Officer is very material and the above two witnesses. being Government servants, it was not possible for the appellant to produce them of his own accord. It was also argued that the learned Tribunal committed a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in closing the evidence without any fault on the part of the appellant and this Court is competent to interfere in such circumstances. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Bhorilal v. 3rd Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi ( AIR 1983 Del. 418 ) , Re Annamalai ( AIR 1953 Mad. 362 ) Kishorilal v. Ram shwardas (AIR 1953 Hyd. 67) , Subodh Bala v. State of W. B. ( AIR 1953 Cal. 702 ) . (5) National Textiles Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan (AIR 1983 SC 92) , and (6) Dayawanti v. Kripa Ram ( AIR 1981 H.P. 6 ) . 6. Mr. O. P. Garg, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the election tribunal had granted enough opportunities to the appellant for producing his evidence. It was also specifically ordered that it would be the responsibility of the appellant to bring his own witnesses. It was also submitted that no process fee and summons were filed by the appellant for summoning these witnesses. It was also specifically ordered that it would be the responsibility of the appellant to bring his own witnesses. It was also submitted that no process fee and summons were filed by the appellant for summoning these witnesses. It was also argued that in any case, the election tribunal was competent to pass the impugned order and if the appellant had any grievance in this regard, the same can be raised when the case would be finally disposed of and challenge, if any, could be made against the said final judgment given in the main case. 7. We have given our careful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Ordinarily, it is correct that this Court should not interfere in orders like the present one passed by the learned tribunal in exercise of the powers of this Court under Articles 226/& 227 of the Constitution. However, if this Court feels that extraordinary circumstances exist or grave injustice is being caused to a party, then, this Court is certainly empowered to invoke its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct such error committed by the tribunal. 9. We have fully perused the original record of the petition and we are convinced that the appellant Jagdish Prasad was filing the process fee and summons from the very beginning for summoning the two witnesses, namely, Sant Kumar and Dhirendra Chaturvedi. Upto 28-11-84, cross-examination of Jagdish Prasad was going on and thereafter 18-2-84 was fixed for recording the statement of the remaining witnesses of Jagdish Prasad. A perusal of the record shows that the process fee and summons were filed for 18-2-84 and Sant Kumar was even served for this date, but he did not appear and thereafter, the case was adjourned to other dates. Subsequently also, appellant Jagdish Prasad filed process fee and summons for these two witnesses and the said two witnesses being Government servants, it was not possible for the appellant to compel them to appear in the court. The entire record shows that there was no intentional delay on the part of the appellant and in such cases where witnesses are Government servants, it was the duty of the tribunal to have given proper and sufficient opportunity to the appellant, to summon these two witnesses through court. It cannot be disputed that the evidence of these two witnesses is material in the present case. It cannot be disputed that the evidence of these two witnesses is material in the present case. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant frankly conceded before us that he did not want to press for producing Mohd. Khan and Gani Khan, but he only pressed for granting the appellant an opportunity to produce Sant Kumar and Dhirendra Chaturvcdi, who were the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer respectively at the relevant time. 11. Taking in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to take a view that exceptional circumstances exist in this case and grave injustice would be caused to the appellant if the said witnesses are not allowed to be examined at this stage when the question of re-counting of ballot papers is yet to be decided by the tribunal. 12. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge as well as that of the Tribunal dated 6-9-84 and direct that the two witnesses, viz. Sant Kumar Sharma and Dhirendra Chaturvedi shall be allowed to be produced as witnesses on behalf of the appellant. It will be the duty of the appellant to get the aforesaid two witnesses served. We direct the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 1-12-84, as already fixed. The parties have agreed before us to take 3-1-1985 for recording the statement of these two witnesses before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall issue summons for the aforesaid date 3-1-85 and it would be the responsibility of the appellant to serve the above mentioned witnesses before that date. The Tribunal may also fix a date prior to 3-1-85 for ass raining that the above-mentioned witnesses have been served or not Learned counsel for the appellant has undertaken before us that the above- mentioned witnesses will be served for 3-1-1985. 13. No further adjournment shall be given to the appellant for serving the aforesaid two witnesses. In case the aforesaid witnesses do not appear in spite of of service, the Tribunal would be free to take further appropriate action for compelling them to appear according to law. 14. Let the record of the case be sent immediately by special massenger.Appeal allowed. *******