Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 360 (KER)

G. Anitha v. Beena Krishna

2003-06-04

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

body2003
Judgment :- The candidate who was returned from Ward No. 21 of Palkulangara Division of Corporation of Kollam in the election held on 25.9.2000 is the revision petitioner. Her election was set aside by the Election Tribunal-the Munsiff, Kollam whose order was confirmed in appeal by the District Court, Kollam. 2. The contest was a direct one between the revision petitioner, a candidate sponsored by the Left Democratic Front and the first respondent, a U.D.F. candidate. The election was conducted with the aid of electronic voting machine. At the conclusion of the election, going by the statistics given by the officials, the revision petitioner secured 1465 votes and the first respondent secured 1469 votes. Out of the total postal ballots which were counted, the revision petitioner secured 9 votes more while the first respondent got only 5 votes. Final tabulation resulted in a tie, each candidate securing 1474 votes. The second respondent-Returning Officer resolved the issue by draw of lots which favoured the revision petitioner. 3. The first respondent challenged the election contending inter alia that the results were vitiated on account of double voting by six persons mentioned in Annexure A in the election petition and also on account of voting by personation by 5 persons mentioned in Annexure B, all these 11 votes, according to the first respondent being liable to be excluded from reckoning as void votes. It was alleged that six of the postal ballots which were actually received after the counting started were liable to be ignored and that four of the postal ballots were fatally defective in the context of declarations in Form Nos. 16 and 19 also liable to be excluded. Serious allegations were raised against the second respondent regarding the preparation of lots and modus operandi of the conduct of draw. It was also alleged that the election is vitiated on account of the corrupt practice of procuring the assistance of public servants for advancing the election prospects of the revision petitioner, whose husband himself is a public servant being seriously highlighted in the petition. 4. Detailed objections were filed by the revision petitioner to the election petition. Initially it was contended that the petition is not maintainable due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions in the matter of filing the petition, signing verification, attestation and supply of copies, schedules, annexures etc. 4. Detailed objections were filed by the revision petitioner to the election petition. Initially it was contended that the petition is not maintainable due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions in the matter of filing the petition, signing verification, attestation and supply of copies, schedules, annexures etc. Allegations regarding double voting, voting by personation in favour of the revision petitioner, irregularities alleged in the context, of postal ballots, improprieties in the matter of preparation and draw of lots, the corrupt practices were all seriously objected to. The revision petitioner filed a recrimination petition seeking a declaration to the effect, that if the result is in favour of the first respondent the election would have been void. The allegations in the recrimination petition included violation of the rules regarding maintenance of election accounts, corrupt practices of spending excessive amounts, canvassing voters and appearing to them on the ground of caste and community, bribery to a few voters inhabiting in a particular settlement colony, hiring of vehicles for free conveyance of voters to and from the polling stations. To the recrimination petition, the first respondent filed detailed objections. 5. The learned Munsiff framed as many as 20 issues for trial. Oral evidence on the side of the election petitioner consisted of testimonies of P.ws. 1 to 17 and documents-Exts.A1 to A3 while on the side of the revision petitioner, the same consisted of D.Ws. 1 to 12 and Exts. X1 to X29. On an initial consideration of the matter, the learned Munsiff found that out of the total number of votes cast, 10 votes were void, 8 votes by personation and 2 votes including the vote of Chandra Babu (Serial. No. 1076) by double voting. Noticing that these void votes had materially affected the result of the election, the learned Munsiff ordered decoding of these votes for the purpose of eliminating the void votes. Recoding was not done in respect of the vote of Serial No. 1076, Chandra Babu which was subject matter of the recrimination petition on the reason that recrimination petitioner (revision petitioner) did not take steps to bring the electronic voting machine used in that polling station. Finally when the 9 votes were decoded, it was found that 4 votes were cast in favour of the election petitioner and 5 in favour of the revision petitioner. Finally when the 9 votes were decoded, it was found that 4 votes were cast in favour of the election petitioner and 5 in favour of the revision petitioner. Consequently, the 4 votes were deducted from the account of the election petitioner and 5 from the account, of the election petitioner and 5 from the account of the revision petitioner. On the tabulation prepared by the Returning Officer, the result was that the election petitioner secured 1470 valid votes as against 1469 valid votes secured by the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the Munsiff declared the election petitioner as elected after setting aside the election of the revision petitioner. 6. The revision petitioner appealed to the District Court, Kollam under Sec. 189 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. That court concurred with all the findings of the election tribunal except the one entered in the context of the vote cast by Chandra Babu. The learned Munsiff had on a comparison of Chandra Babu’s signatures in the vote register pertaining to Palkulangara and Manakkad with the indisputable signature on the deposition found that Chandra Babu himself had cast his vote in both places. Learned District Judge set aside that finding. However, the same did not have any consequence on the result of the election since that vote had not been decoded. 7. Before me, Sri. T.R. Raman Pillai, Senior Advocate addressed elaborate arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner while Sri. E.R. Venkitswaran, Advocate addressed me on behalf of the first respondent. The lower court records were perused. 8. Even though in the memorandum of revision grounds pertaining to findings of the learned Munsiff on almost every issue formulated for trial have been raised and Sri. T.R. Raman Pillai in his submissions dealt at least briefly each one of them, I propose to refer only to those submissions of the learned Senior Advocate which were addressed by him more seriously and which I found to be appealing. Learned counsel drew my attention to the distinction between ‘double voting’ and ‘voting by personation’ which according to him were entirely different concepts. Going by the election petition, the definite plea of the 1st respondent was that 6 persons named in Annexure a had voted twice and for that reason the votes of those persons, some of whom were examined as P.Ws. 4, 6, 7 and 8 are void. Going by the election petition, the definite plea of the 1st respondent was that 6 persons named in Annexure a had voted twice and for that reason the votes of those persons, some of whom were examined as P.Ws. 4, 6, 7 and 8 are void. The learned Munsiff’s finding regarding double voting under issue No. 3 was that the votes of the 6 of the persons mentioned in Annexure A were cast by certain other persons while the vote of one of the person was cast by himself twice. In other words, in respect of 5 persons, finding as against the plea of double voting was that their votes were cast by personation. Mr. Raman Pillai submitted that these findings entered by the learned Munsiff and confirmed by the learned District Judge in so far as they are based on evidence which does not have any foundation in pleadings are liable to be vacated forthwith. On the authority of Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe ((1995) 5 SCC 347) Kamalnath v. Sudesh Verma ((2002) 2 SCC 410) and Ram Sarup Gupta v. Rishun Narain Inter College (AIR 1987 SC 1242) the counsel submitted that pleadings are of utmost importance in election cases and elementary rule of appreciation of evidence in civil cases that evidence should have foundation in pleadings was to be applied strictly. Learned counsel drew my attention to the relevant provisions of the Municipalities Act and corresponding provisions of the Representation of the people Act to drive home his points regarding importance of pleadings and the distinction between the double voting and voting by personation. Learned counsel referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in T. Vikheshe Sema v. Hokishe Seme (AIR 1996 SC 1842), Raman v. Balan Vaidhyar (1988(2) KLT 663) and Mohammed Basheer v. P.R. Kurup (1988(1) KLT Sh. Note Case No. 76, Page 41). Regarding the persons mentioned in Annexure A, Mr. Raman Pillai submitted that the case that the revision petitioner was called upon to defend was one of double voting and not one of voting by personation. The case presently found, the learned counsel submitted was contrary to the pleader case which was an assertion that the 6 persons mentioned in Annexure A themselves voted in Palkulangara and Manakkad. Raman Pillai submitted that the case that the revision petitioner was called upon to defend was one of double voting and not one of voting by personation. The case presently found, the learned counsel submitted was contrary to the pleader case which was an assertion that the 6 persons mentioned in Annexure A themselves voted in Palkulangara and Manakkad. According to the counsel, serious prejudice has been caused on account of the acceptance of evidence not founded in pleadings by the court below. 9. Another point which was urged by Mr. Raman Pillai with almost seriousness was that the learned Munsiff did not permit the counsel of either parties to witness the decoding process. Mr. Raman Pillai pointed out that such permission was sought by both sides. But permission was refused on two unsustainable reasons. (1) Secrecy of election will be lost (2) Secrecy of courts own judgment during the pre-pronouncement period will be lost. In support of this argument. Mr. Raman Pillai cited before me the decisions of the Supreme Court in T.Vikheshe Sema (Supra), Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. George Mascrene (1994(1) KLT 887) and Bashir Ahmed Magrev v. Ghulam Quadir Mir and others (AIR 1977 SC 231). According to the learned counsel, the principle of secrecy of votes does not have application to votes that are void since void votes are not votes at all. The reliance placed by the courts below on the decoding exercise done by Mr. Mohan Reddy, the expert who manufactured the decoder and conducted the decoding process came up for strong attack at Mr. Raman Pillai’s hands. According to him, Sri. Mohan Reddy was after all only an expert giving opinion evidence and the print outs delivered by him should not have been relied on without the parties have allowed to cross-examine him. 10. Mr. Raman Pillai was still more serious in the submissions made by him in the context of vote cast by Chandra Babu (Serial No. 1076) in Palkulangara. The reversal of the finding regarding the nature of the vote cast by Chandra Babu in Palkulangara and Manakkad was severely criticized by Mr. Pillai. Supporting the learned Munsiff’s finding regarding the nature of Chandra Babu’s vote, Mr. Pillai blamed the learned Munsiff for not having decoded that vote and deducted the same from the account, of the concerned candidate. The reversal of the finding regarding the nature of the vote cast by Chandra Babu in Palkulangara and Manakkad was severely criticized by Mr. Pillai. Supporting the learned Munsiff’s finding regarding the nature of Chandra Babu’s vote, Mr. Pillai blamed the learned Munsiff for not having decoded that vote and deducted the same from the account, of the concerned candidate. According to the learned counsel, the observation of the learned Munsiff which is endorsed by the learned District Judge that the revision petitioner did not take steps for decoding that vote was not correct and even if the same is correct on considerations of purity of election and finding out the true will of people, the court was bound to do that on its own. Sri. E.R. Venkiteswaran, learned counsel for the first respondent would meet most of the arguments addressed by Sri. Raman Pillai. Inviting my attention to the scheme for resolution of the election disputes envisaged by the Municipalities Act, the learned counsel submitted that on questions of fact, the judgment of the District Judge in appeal was final and this court’s jurisdiction under Sec. 115 was very narrow. Learned counsel referred me to the decisions such as Mohankumar & Others v. Rajagopal & Others (1999(2) KLJ 550). He made an endeavor to show that as far as the six persons mentioned in Annexure A is concerned, the pleadings did indicate an allegation that they had not voted in Palkulangara, i.e., the votes in Palkulangara is cast by somebody else through personation. According to Mr. Venkiteswaran, witnesses P.W.4-Sreekumar, P.W.7-Syamkumar, P.W.5–Terence and P.W.10-Udayan did establish that their apparent votes in Palkulangara were cast by personation. Referring me to the decision in Neelalodhithadesan Nadar (supra) and Santhosh Yadav v. Narender Singh (J.T. 2001 (9) SC 392) Paragraph 15, Mr. Venkiteswaran submitted that when evidence has been allowed to be let in without any opposition submissions or otherwise of pleadings have to be appreciated in the context of the evidence also. Learned counsel submitted that Cross-examination of the witnesses when were relied on by the learned Munsiff to support his finding regarding voting by personation was not at all effective. No prejudice, according to the counsel was caused to the revision petitioner at any rate due to insufficiency of pleadings. Learned counsel submitted that Cross-examination of the witnesses when were relied on by the learned Munsiff to support his finding regarding voting by personation was not at all effective. No prejudice, according to the counsel was caused to the revision petitioner at any rate due to insufficiency of pleadings. According to him, votes of other people mentioned in Annexure B such as Omanajuttan and Babu had also actually been cast through personation. Submitting about the decoding process adopted by the learned Munsiff, Mr. Venkateswaran submitted that the same has been done in the best possible manner at the instance of the respondent who alone was enthusiastic about bringing the best evidence before the court. Learned counsel submitted that after as many as 17 witnesses had been examined on the side of the election petitioner and 12 on the side of the revision petitioner, the election petitioner only could locate Mr. Mohan Reddy, a very talented Electronics Engineer belonging to Electronic Corporation of India and file application to the court to summon him. This the learned counsel pointed out was done after a qualified Engineer from Keltron expressed his helplessness in the matter of decoding the machines for retrieving the bad votes. Learned counsel would submit that Mr. Reddy was present in the open court and the discussion between him and the court took place in the open court and counsel on both sides also participated in such discussion and at that point of time nobody raised any doubt regarding the credential and credibility of Mr. Reddy. Nobody opposed when Mr. Reddy sought for 8 weeks’ time to manufacture a new decoder since the decoder originally made by the Electronic Corporation of India and handed over to the Election Commission of India had become non-functional due to disuse. Nobody wanted to cross-examine him. The reasons assigned by the court for having the decoding process done in the Chambers of the court in the absence of the counsel and parties, according to Mr. Venkiteswaran are good reasons. Mr. Venkiteswaran drew my attention to the proceedings paper of the learned Munsiff to support his submission regarding the circumstances under which Mr. Reddy became involved in this case. The minutes of the decoding process is kept by the learned Munsiff separately in a sealed cover. Answering the submission of Sri. Venkiteswaran are good reasons. Mr. Venkiteswaran drew my attention to the proceedings paper of the learned Munsiff to support his submission regarding the circumstances under which Mr. Reddy became involved in this case. The minutes of the decoding process is kept by the learned Munsiff separately in a sealed cover. Answering the submission of Sri. Raman Pillai that the court is not justified in concluding that, there has been voting through personation only on comparison of signature, Mr. Venkiteswaran submitted that even forensic experts could give only opinion evidence and ultimately it is for the court to decide on the acceptability of such evidence and comparison of signature is warranted by Sec. 73 and will in many cases be a safe method. 11. By way of reply Sri. Raman Pillai invited my attention to ground nos. 19 to 24 raised in the appeal memorandum and submitted that the revision petitioner had certainly urged for an opportunity to decode Chandra Babu’s vote and to examine Mr. Mohan Reddy. Adopting the argument of Mr. Venkiteswaran regarding comparison of signature, Mr. Raman Pillai concluded his submissions by pointing out that the learned Munsiff was convicted of such a comparison that Chandra Babu had double voted at Palkulangara and Manakkad. 12. As indicated by me already. I am of the view that notwithstanding the elaborate submissions addressed before me by the learned counsel, it will suffice if I answer only the following points which arise seriously for determination of this revision: - (1) Whether the courts below were justified in holding that the votes apparently cast by Pws. 4, 7,9,10 in Palkulangara Division are void on account of impersonation in the absence of specific pleadings in that regard? (2) Whether the courts below were justified in turning down the request of both parties to have the decoding exercise done in the presence of counsel appearing for them? (3) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in interfering with the finding of the election tribunal regarding the vote cast by Chandra Babu (PW 12) ? (4) Whether the courts below went wrong in not decoding the vote of Chandra Babu on the score that the revision petitioner did not take steps? 13. (3) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in interfering with the finding of the election tribunal regarding the vote cast by Chandra Babu (PW 12) ? (4) Whether the courts below went wrong in not decoding the vote of Chandra Babu on the score that the revision petitioner did not take steps? 13. Going by the election petition, the specifically pleaded case regarding the six persons separately mentioned in Annexure A is of double voting so also the separately pleaded case regarding the 5 votes mentioned in Annexure B is of voting by personation. A scanning of the evidence adduced by the election petitioner (PW1) will show that it is the specifically pleaded case which she tried to pursue. The learned Munsiff did considered the arguments seriously raised before him that the petitioner shall not allowed to contention on the basis of the evidence given on record that the votes of anybody mentioned in Annexure A were cast by personation since such evidence is diametrically opposed to the pleaded case and therefore not legal evidence. This argument is seen repelled by the learned Munsiff who observed that before those voters were examined, there was no scope for anybody to believe that it was not double voting. According to the Munsiff, the petitioner can be expected to plead only the facts known to him and therefore according to the Munsiff, there is no irregularity in the pleadings regarding the voters mentioned in Annexure A. The same argument, when urged before the District Judge is repelled observing that “but on going through the election petition, it is seen that the petitioner has alleged that the votes polled in favour of the 1st respondent included votes cast by double voting and impersonation. Hence the argument of the appellant’s counsel that there was no pleading regarding impersonation is without merits”. I am of the view that reasoning of the learned Munsiff and the observations of the learned District Judge are equally incorrect. As indicated earlier, the pleadings pertaining to votes void due to double voting and votes void on account of personation have been specifically and separately raised. It is those pleadings which the revision petitioner was called upon to defend and it was in substantiation of those pleadings that evidence was let in. The District Judge has apparently missed the point that double voting and voting by personation are totality different concepts. It is those pleadings which the revision petitioner was called upon to defend and it was in substantiation of those pleadings that evidence was let in. The District Judge has apparently missed the point that double voting and voting by personation are totality different concepts. Of Course, votes polled by double voting and votes polled by personation are void. But in the case of double voting it will have to be established that they very same voter who is registered twice has voted twice. The idea of double voting is inherently inconsistent with the idea of personation. In the instant case, the assertion was that the six persons mentioned in Annexure A themselves voted twice. Evidence, if any, adduced to show that somebody also voted for those persons will be evidence for voting by personation and such evidence is in conflict with the asserted position regarding the identity of the persons who voted twice as the registered voters themselves. Sri. T.R. Raman Pillai’s argument in this context fortified as they are by the decision of the Supreme court in Ram Sarup Gupta (supra) and Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat (supra) and Kamalnath v. Sudesh Verma (AIR (2002) 2 SCC 410) are really strong. Mr. Venkiteswaran also did not contend against the importance of the pleadings in election cases and also against the elementary rule of evidence appreciation in civil case that evidence should have reasonable foundation in pleadings. The decisions cited by the learned counsel in Neelalohithadesan Nadar (supra) and Santhosh Yadav v. Narender Singh (supra) in support of his argument that when evidence have been allowed to be let in without any opposition, sufficiency or otherwise of the pleadings had to be appreciated in the context of such evidence also, in my view do not answer Mr. Raman Pillai’s argument, instead underlines the necessity of concise and specific pleadings. As I have already stated, P.W.1 was trying to substantiate her specifically pleaded case of double voting by persons mentioned in Annexure A and the suggestion in cross-examination do show that the revision petitioner was conscious of the pleadings which she had taken which were obviously understood is one in respect of double voting and not in respect of a case of personation by those six persons. Of course, when the revision petitioner was examined as D.W.1, it would appear that she had not been concerned with the insufficiency of pleadings on the part of the election petitioner’s case developed during evidence that Annexure A votes are void on account of personation and was really more concerned with substantiating the grounds in her recrimination petition. Even than, having regard to the settled principle that pleadings in election cases has to be construed strictly and that the rules of pleadings in election cases will have to be adhered to strictly and that the burden of proof for success in election petition having the effect of unseating an elected candidate is certainly higher than what is required in ordinary civil cases, I am of the view that the finding that 5, out of the 6 votes pertaining to persons mentioned in Annexure A are void votes having been cast, by personators is having no foundation in pleadings or is in conflict with the pleadings and therefore is liable to be vacated. 14. At the same time, I am not, unmindful of the settled position that in election law though several considerations are relevant, the most relevant is one of purity of elections. There is evidence as found by the courts below that the votes of these 5 persons are void on account of voting by personation. The evidence so adduced can be regularised or made legal by permitting the election petitioner to apply for an amendment of the petition so as to incorporate an alternate plea of voting by personation in the case of the voters mentioned in Annexure A also. Sri. T.R. Raman Pillai took serious exception to this Court granting permission to amend the election petition at this later stage and requested me to leave the question of grantability of amendment application to the trial court. However, on considerations of purity of elections and also on the consideration of avoidance of delay, I am inclined to grant that permission from this court itself. 15. Regarding the vote cast by Chandra Babu, D.w. 12, alleged in the recrimination petition to have cast his vote twice, the Munsiff found that the allegation stood proved while the learned District Judge interfered. The learned District Judge set aside that finding in appeal. This the learned District Judge found upholding a prayer in the memorandum of cross-objections filed by the election petitioner. The learned District Judge set aside that finding in appeal. This the learned District Judge found upholding a prayer in the memorandum of cross-objections filed by the election petitioner. D.W.12’s evidence was to the effect that though he was having votes both in Palkulangara and Manakkad, he voted only at Palkulangara. Exts. X24(b) and Ext. X19(a) are the relevant entries of the vote registers pertaining to palkulangara and Manakkad respectively in respect of Chandra Babu. The learned Munsiff on a comparison of admitted signatures of chandra Babu. The learned Munsiff on a comparison of admitted signatures of Chandra Babu available in the deposition and Ext. X19(a) found that Chandra Babu himself had voted on both places. The District Judge interfered on the reason that Ext.X18 marked voters list produced by the Returning Officer did not contain a tick mark or underlining with red ink as in the case of other votes actually cast in that division. But in the face of Ext.X19 vote register pertaining to Manakkad division which contains the full signatures of the voters whose votes were actually cast, it will have to be found that non-underlying or non-ticking against the name of Chandra babu, in Ext.X18 is an omission. The served summons and the deposition contains the indisputable signatures of Chandra Babu and on my comparison also I find that the learned Munsiff’s view that these signatures and the signature on Ext.X19(a) compare favourably cannot be said to be unreasonable. Chandra Babu could obtain registration of a vote in Manakkad also, in view of the obvious position that his wife’s house belongs to that division. Even though the suggestion that Chandra Babu is a Congress worker belonging to U.D.F. is denied, I am of the view that the District Judge was not justified in interfering with the finding of the learned Munsiff that Chandra Babu’s vote in Palkulangara is void due to double voting. 16. The learned Munsiff did not decode the vote cast by Chandra Babu in Palukulangara on the reason that no steps were taken by the revision petitioner. Sri. Raman Pillai took serious exception to the finding/observation that the revision petitioner did not want to have a decoding of Chandra Babu’s vote. Having gone through the appeal memorandum. I am inclined to accept Mr. Sri. Raman Pillai took serious exception to the finding/observation that the revision petitioner did not want to have a decoding of Chandra Babu’s vote. Having gone through the appeal memorandum. I am inclined to accept Mr. Raman Pillai’s argument that an opportunity was sought for during the course of hearing before the learned District Judge in that regard and that the learned District Judge did not find it necessary to grant such an opportunity in view of the reversal of the finding entered by the Munsiff regarding the validity of Chandra Babu’s vote. 17. It was common ground before the learned Munsiff that the decoding process should have been permitted to be witnessed at least by counsel on either sides. On the reason that secrecy of election will be lost, and that the secrecy of the courts’ own judgment will be affected, such permission was refused by the courts below. I am sure that the credibility of Mr. Mohan Reddy, the expert from the Electronics Corporation of India has never been in question and that it is very unlikely that any prejudice has been caused to any of the parties on account of the court having conducted the decoding in the absence of the parties or their counsel. Even then, I am inclined to hold that the reasons stated by the courts below for not allowing the presence of the counsel during decoding cannot be sustained. Secrecy of elections of course, is a cardinal principle of election law, but more sacrosanct is the principle of purity of elections. As reiterated by the Supreme Court in Neelalohithadasan Nadar’s case (supra) and other cases the principle of secrecy of vote cannot have application to a vote which is void. 18. As regards secrecy of the courts’ judgment, it may be true that decoding the disputed votes in an election like the present one where the margin of victory has been very thin, it will be possible for the counsel for the parties who witnessed the decoding to foresee the inevitable verdict of the court upon completion of the decoding. But in this country where the adversarial system of justice delivery has been adopted, counsel has to be taken into confidence in many a matter. But in this country where the adversarial system of justice delivery has been adopted, counsel has to be taken into confidence in many a matter. Even otherwise, I am of the view and it has been my experience that in situations where facts become evident and law does not admit of confusion, it will be possible for truly learned counsel to foresee the result of the litigation at least at the time when arguments are being addressed. More so, in the case of courts presided over by judges who believe in interaction with the Bar. Had it not been for my decision in the context of Chandra Babu’s vote and also in the context of Mr. Raman Pillai’s arguments with reference to the law of pleadings, on the facts of this case, I would have accepted Mr. Venkiteswaran’s argument that no prejudice has been occasioned in this case due to the non-grant of permission to the parties or counsel to witness the decoding. But since the matter is going back I am directing a redoing of the decoding exercise in the presence of the election petitioner Smt. Beena Krishnan, her counsel, Smt. G.Anitha, the revision petitioner, her counsel in addition to any other person whom the Trial Court can decide. It is the policy of law that disposal of election petitions should be made at the earliest. The remand to the trial court will inevitably result in delay. To avoid the same, to the extent possible, I am setting a time frame and issuing certain directions which should be strictly complied with by the trial court. 19. The result is that the judgment of the appellate court and the order of the trial court are set aside and O.P. (Ele) No. 4 of 2000 will go back to the trial court. That, court will allow an application for amendment of the election petition for incorporating an alternative plea of voting by personation in respect of the votes mentioned in Annexure A, if the same is filed within one week of the day stipulated for the appearance of the parties. The 1st respondent alone need be permitted to file objections to the amendment application. She can be given a maximum period of three days from the date of service of amendment application to resist any of amendments sought for beyond what is permitted. The 1st respondent alone need be permitted to file objections to the amendment application. She can be given a maximum period of three days from the date of service of amendment application to resist any of amendments sought for beyond what is permitted. The election petition should be special listed for trial during the 3rd or 4th week of July, 2003, if necessary after publishing an additional special list for that purpose. Once special listed, the trial should go on a day-to-day basis. The revision petitioner-1st respondent shall take all steps including steps for decoding of all the 10 votes already found by the learned Munsiff to be void, including that of Chandra Babu. Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the election petitioner and the revision petitioner and the election petitioner can also be permitted to witness the decoding exercise. Recalling of witnesses need be permitted only in the case of P.W.1 and D.w.1 among the parties and only those private witnesses who had something to do with the validity or otherwise of the 10 votes now found to be void. If the learned Munsiff finds that the 1st respondent or the election petitioner is adopting dodging tactics in the matter of remittance of process or production of witnesses, it will be open to that court to drop the concerned witness. Revised orders should be passed by the learned Munsiff atleast by the 4th September, 2003 or on the day when the court re-opens after Onam vacation. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, notwithstanding my order setting aside the judgment of the learned District Judge, the first respondent-election petitioner will continue to be in office till the disposal of the election petition by the learned Munsiff and her rights will be confined to those granted to her under the order dated 2.4.2002 passed by this court in C.M.P. No. 1580/02, the stay petition. Parties will appear before the trial court on 11.6.2003. Transmit the records forthwith. The C.R.P. is allowed as above. Parties will suffer their respective costs.