JUDGMENT K.N. Misra. J. 1. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 Sri P.K. Khare states that he does not want to press the injunction application which was moved by opposite party Bishambhar, before the District Judge wherein he had prayed for issue of an injunction order against the petitioner restraining him from taking oath of office of Pramukh and from functioning as such. It appears that during the pendency of this writ petition, when the order was passed on the application for interim relief, the petitioner has taken oath of office to which he was elected and he is functioning as such since then. In this writ petition a question was raised whether the documents relating to elections could be summoned and perused by the court for the purposes of disposal of the injunction application. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the learned District Judge could not summon and peruse the documents of prohibited category relating to election while disposing of the injunction application filed by the election petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have stated that documents were received in sealed cover and they have been returned without having been perused by the learned District Judge in pursuance of the order passed by this court. Those documents were returned to the District Magistrate from whom the same were summoned. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the opinion that the learned District Judge erred in passing the impugned order dated 8.6.83 contained in annexure 6 and the order dated 10.6.83 contained in annexure 8 while disposing of the injunction application. The said orders deserve to be quashed. 3. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The orders dated 8.6.83 and 10.6.83 contained in annexures 6 and 8 are hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs. (Petition allowed)