ORDER 14.05.2010 — The petitioners is the elected Chairman of Balipadar Pan¬chayat Samiti. His election is assailed by the opposite party in consonance with Rule 45(b) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti (Con¬duct of Enquiry by the District Judge into the allegation or doubt about disqualification of members) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter to be called as “1973 Rules”). In course of such proceeding, no witness was examined, but then a petition was filed on 17.7.2009 to mark certain documents. The said petition, it appears, was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, on the basis of an oral prayer made, the District Judge permitted respondent No.1 to exhibit four documents. The said order was assailed before this court in W.P.(C) No. 11179 of 2008. The said petition was dis¬posed of by the Hon’ble Single Judge on 28.10.2009. After taking note of different provisions of 1973 Rules, more particularly, Rule 8 of the said Rules, the Hon’ble Single Judge came to the conclusion that the proceedings under Rule 45(b) of the Panchayat Samiti Act are summary in nature and strict provisions of CPC or the Evidence Act should not be adhered to. The said observation gets fortified from the decision in the case of Soneswar Borah Vs. Nagen Neog and others, AIR 1987 Gauhati 11 and has also been reiterated in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and others, (2005) 4 SCC 480 , wherein the Supreme Court after discussing the facts in extenso has observed: “xxxx it is clear that the applicability of the procedure provided for the trial of suits to the trial of election peti¬tions is not attracted with all its rigidity and technicality. The rules of procedure contained in CPC apply to the trial of election petitions under the Act with flexibility and only as guidelines.” The Hon’ble Single Judge after discussing the facts and circumstances and after going through the documents, which were marked as exhibits, came to the conclusion that one of the docu¬ments issued by the Public Relation Officer did not satisfy the test, consequently, the writ petition was partly allowed and out of the four documents, Hon’ble Single Judge directed that three documents shall be marked as exhibits, but the letter issued by the Public Relation Officer should not be marked as exhibit. The said order is assailed in this writ appeal. The said order is assailed in this writ appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant forcefully submitted that the list of documents along with the application filed by the appellant having been rejected, the District Judge acted illegal¬ly with material irregularity in exhibiting those documents and the said fact was not kept in mind by the Hon’ble Single Judge. These submissions are strongly repudiated by Mr. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1. According to Mr. Acharya, the proceeding before the District Judge being summary in nature, adherence to strict procedure of CPC or the Evidence Act is not necessary. The District Judge after taking into con¬sideration all the facts, allowed the oral prayer made by re¬spondent no.1 and permitted him to get the four documents exhib¬ited. Hon’ble Single Judge after discussing the materials though upheld the decision of the District Judge in respect of marking of three documents as exhibits, but then directed that the letter issued by the Public Relation Officer should not be marked as exhibit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order passed by the Hon’ble Single judge, this Court finds absolutely no infirmity or irregularity therein. Law being well settled that the dispute under Rule 45(B) of the 1973 Rules should be decided in summary nature and technicalities should not be insisted upon. We find that this is not a fit case where any interference of this Court is called for in this writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, the District Judge is directed to dispose of the proceeding as expe¬ditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. Parties are directed to co-operate in the proceeding. Appeal dismissed.