Honble SHETHNA, J.–Though served, no one appears for the contesting respondent no.1. (2). Learned counsel Mr. Singhal for the petitioner vehemently submitted that though the original record was called for by the Civil Court on the application submitted by none else than the respondent no.1- original plaintiff but the same was not perused or seen by the learned Judge before passing the impugned order dated 20.8.96 (Annex.5) and the learned Judge has simply relied upon a certified copy of the result sheet issued by the record office of the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be set aside. (3). It appears that this submission is made by the learned counsel Mr. Singhal on assumption because it was not stated by the learned Judge in its impugned order that he perused the record and passed the order. When there is an authentic docu- ment in the form of the certified copy issued by none else than the record office of the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar showing that the respondent no.1 originial plaintiff got 139 votes and the present petitioner-original defendant secured only 78 votes out of total 217 votes, then such certified copy has to be relied upon and in my opinion, the learned Judge has rightly relied upon such certified copy. (4). Mr. Singhal, however, submitted that without examining the record from the record office of the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, such a document in the form of certified copy ought not to have been relied upon by the learned Judge. Certified copy of a government document is straightway admissible in evidence under Sec.77 of the Indian Evidence Act and it is not required to be proved by calling the person who has issued the certified copy of the result sheet. Before the Civil Judge, no such objection was raised nor any request was made on behalf of the present petitioner- defendant to call for any person from the Record Office, District Collector, Sri Ganganagar to prove the contents of the document. (5). One more submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Singhal that on 9.8.96, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant before the learned Civil Judge pleaded no instruction and on that very day, the learned Judge finally heard the matter without giving any further opportunity to the petitioner defendant to examine any witness. (5). One more submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Singhal that on 9.8.96, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant before the learned Civil Judge pleaded no instruction and on that very day, the learned Judge finally heard the matter without giving any further opportunity to the petitioner defendant to examine any witness. He further submitted that the learned Judge was empowered to proceed in the matter under Order 17 Rule 2 C.P.C. when the petitioner-defendant was not present and on his behalf, the learned counsel appearing before the learned Civil Judge pleaded no instructions but the case could not have been finally heard in the absence of the petitioner defendant by the lear- ned Civil Judge. He further submitted that in the interest of justice, the learned Civil Judge ought to have exercised its discretion under Order 9 C.P.C. and he should have given atleast one opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to lead his evidence. It may be stated that the petitioner in collusion of the Reporting Officer got himself declared as Panch. As per the certified copy of the result sheet (Ex.1), the original plaintiff respondent no.1 had won the election. The election petition was filed by the respondent no.1 plaintiff before the Civil Court on 28.2.95 and his evidence was closed on 6.5.96. Thereafter, the date for recording evidence of the petitioner- defendant was fixed on 5.7.96 but he remained absent deliberately on that day and did not lead any evidence. Inspite of it, the learned Judge gave one opportunity to the petitioner -defendant to lead his evidence by awarding Rs.100/- as costs to the respondent no.1 plaintiff and the matter was kept on 9.8.96. But, once again on that day, the petitioner defendant deliberately did not remain present. There upon his counsel had to plead no instructions and accordingly, the learned Civil Judge in exercise of its power under Order 9 Rule 6(1) (a) C.P.C. decided to hear the election petition exparte and accordingly he heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff before him and the case was adjourned to 20.8.96 for pronouncement of judgment and accordingly, the judgment was pronounced in favour of the plaintiff and he was declared as elected Panch in view of the certified copy of the result sheet produced before him. (6). (6). Thus, from the facts narrated above, it is clear that after being wrongly de- clared elected as Panch, the petitioner only wanted to delay the hearing of the suit so that he can continue as Panch as far as it is possible for some more time as he was knowing fully well that he was already defeated and he was also going to be defeated in the suit filed by the plaintiff. (7). Under the circumstances, when the learned Judge was fully satisfied that the defendant before him was unnecessarily delaying the hearing of the election petition then in my opinion he was fully justified in proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner under Order 17 Rule 2 C.P.C. and rightly passed the order under Order 9 Rule 6 (1) (a) C.P.C. (8). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed.