Judgment : Petitioner has filed a list of witnesses, wherein figures the name of the petitioner as the first witness and thereafter unnamed group of persons, said to be officials and security personnel who were present inside and outside the office to the returning officer at the time when the petitioner was making her attempts to present her nomination papers. 2. The list is opposed by the respondent by filing objections. It is pointed out that only the petitioner is the named person with sufficient identification, others in the list are unnamed persons and therefore cannot be added as witnesses. 3. Petitioner, who is appearing in person, and Sri C. Shashikantha, learned Counsel for the respondent, are heard on this aspect. 4. Objection is well-taken. A list of witnesses which contains names and witnesses sought to be cited in support of either party’s case and not any unnamed persons. 5. Petitioner has sought to explain that she is unable to furnish the names of witnesses for the reason that inspite of her best efforts, she is unable to get the names with sufficient identity or accuracy, as, inspite of the efforts made by the petitioner by making representations to the Competent Authorities and also through the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 but the concerned authorities are not providing the names of such witnesses. 6. It is also submitted by the petitioner that her efforts were thwarted only because of the appearance of Sri Ashok Haranahalli as Counsel for the respondent even after the Counsel assuming the office of Advocate General and therefore this Court should direct the authorities concerned to produce the records or furnish the names of all such persons to the petitioner and to add them as witnesses to the witness list etc. 7. 7. Submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that this Court acts as an Election Tribunal in examining an election petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the Act’) and notwithstanding the Court having inherent power under other jurisdiction as a High Court and a Court of record, it is not that all such powers are exercised in an election petition to further the needs and requirements of the petitioner or to aid the petitioner, more so in a matter where the petitioner pleads inability or helplessness in getting the names of some witnesses, whom she wants to examine in support her case! 8. This litigation, an election petition, though has a flavour of a litigation involving public interest, in the sense, to question the validity or legality of the declaration of the result in an election, either to an assembly or to the Parliament, and creating a Tribunal and the High Court having been made such a Tribunal under the Act and the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has a larger public interest to serve, in the sense, to maintain purity in elections and in the democratic process, nevertheless, an election petition is essentially a lis between the petitioner and the candidate declared to have been elected in the election process, partaking the character of an adversary litigation and the petitioner before the Court questioning the legality and making efforts to get the election result set aside, as in the present petition. 9. When such is the background and the nature of an election petition, it is the responsibility and so is the requirement of law for an election petitioner to plead the case and to prove it by cogent material and even for the purpose of furnishing of the list of witnesses, names of all the witnesses should be furnished and if the petitioner pleads inability, that cannot be converted into a virtue, to place a premium on such inability or helplessness on the part of the petitioner, for the Court in exercise its other jurisdictions, even while trying an election petition and at any rate I do not find any need for exercise of such power in the present situation. See the following authorities in this regard: • Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527 ; • State of West Bengal and Others v Indira Debi and Another (1977) 3 SCC 559 • P.A. Ahammed Ibrahim v Food Corporation of India AIR 1999 SC 3033 : (1999) 7 SCC • National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v C. Parameshwara AIR 2005 SC 242 : 2004 AIR SCW 6900 • SNP Shipping Service Private Limited v Karamara Shipping Company Limited AIR 2000 Bom. 57 • Bisheshwar Singh v Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barh and Others AIR 1974 Pat. 7 • Marikar Motors v C.E Officer AIR 1973 Ker. 1 • M.S. Suresh v K.V. Sudhakar AIR 1987 Kant. 249 (DB) 10. Though the petitioner has placed reliance on certain authorities such as Mange Ram v Bru Mohan (1993) 4 SCC 36 (sic), in this regard, the authority cited by the petitioner does not advance the case of the petitioner for the purpose of including unnamed group of persons in a list, which has to contain the names of witnesses. The prayer is not tenable for inclusion of such names in the list of witnesses and the list of witnesses sustains only for the purpose of retaining the name of the petitioner herself as a witness to the case and not of any other unnamed persons. 11. Insofar as the application in Misc. Civil No. 9158 of 2010 is concerned, this is an application under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Section 87 of the Act, virtually for supplementing the list of witnesses which had been furnished earlier. 12. 11. Insofar as the application in Misc. Civil No. 9158 of 2010 is concerned, this is an application under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Section 87 of the Act, virtually for supplementing the list of witnesses which had been furnished earlier. 12. In the affidavit supporting this application, the petitioner has stated on oath that the appointment of Advocate General under the Constitution of India is in terms of Article 165 by the Governor of the State, the Advocate General being the principal legal and constitutional advisor to the State Government, if appears in the present case on behalf of the respondent, which is purely a private lis between the petitioner and the respondent, it would considerably prejudice the case of the petitioner, more so in thwarting the attempt of the petitioner in getting the names of the officials and security personnel who were on duty at the office of the returning officer at the time of filing of nomination papers by the petitioner and acceptance thereof by the returning officer and if the Advocate General is summoned as a witness he will be able to depose as to in what manner he has been authorized to appear on behalf of the respondent even after assuming the office of Advocate General and the Court will be in a position to appreciate as to whether such continued appearance has effectively presented the potential witnesses coming forward to depose on behalf of the election petitioner. 13. This application is countered by the respondent thorough a counter-affidavit, pointing out that the question of issue of summons even before the finalizing of the list of witnesses does not arise; that the procedure contemplated even in terms of Rule 14 of the Election Petitions Procedure Rules, Karnataka, framed by the High Court of Karnataka, also does not envisage issue of summons to witnesses even before the list of witnesses is finalized; that it cannot be achieved simultaneously indicating the names and issue of summons together; that one should follow the other i.e., first the list is to be finalized and thereafter to seek for issue summons to witnesses in the list etc. 14. 14. It is also asserted bythe respondent on oath that the respondent has the right and privilege to engage the services of a Counsel of his choice; that when Sri Ashok Haranahalli was engaged as Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent, he had net assumed the office of the Advocate General and if he had continued to appear for the respondent even after assuming the office of the Advocate General for the State there is nothing objectionable or impediment in law for such appearance and at any rate the respondent cannot oblige the petitioner by engaging a Counsel against whom she may not have any objection; that the application for issue of summons to Sri Ashok Haranahalli is required to be rejected. 15. In support of her submissions, the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions: Achutananda Sahoo v Dhruba Ch. Sahoo and Others AIR 1987 Ori. 179 ; Syed Shah Mohd. Hussaini and Another v Shaikh Khutbuddin and Others 1977 (1) Kar. L.J. 374 M.T. Khan and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2004) 2 SCC 267 ; 2004 AIR SCW 504. 16. While there is no doubt that the Court and even Election Tribunal while trying an election petition, will act in a manner to advance the purpose of an opportunity given to an aggrieved person in the context of an election process and in an election petition presented under Section 81 of the Act and to give full opportunity to such petitioner, that in itself will not enable an election petitioner to seek all such prayers and relief which are otherwise not permitted in law by taking recourse to Section 151 of CPC or to any other provisions of law. 17. In the wake of serious objections for issue of witness summons at this stage, the petitioner has submitted that the application may be treated as supplementary list of witnesses. If so, further witnesses at S1. Nos. 1 to 6 can be added as subsequent witnesses cited by the petitioner, supplementing the earlier list of witnesses etc. 18. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, Sri Shashikantha, learned Counsel for the respondent, has seriously objected for citing Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate General as a witnesses and so also the Secretary to Governor, the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka. 19. 18. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, Sri Shashikantha, learned Counsel for the respondent, has seriously objected for citing Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate General as a witnesses and so also the Secretary to Governor, the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka. 19. The question as to whether Sri Ashok Haranahalli had been duly authorized by the Governor or otherwise even for his appearance on behalf of the respondent has been sufficiently replied in the counter-affidavit and it is clarified that his appearance was in his personal capacity, though holding the office of Advocate General, at the request of the respondent and not at the behest of the State Government or either authorized by the Secretary to Governor or the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka. There is no reason for this Court to doubt this counter-affidavit and therefore the need to cite Sri Ashok Haranahalli, the Secretary to Governor or the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka is not a relevant aspect, particularly in the context of the pleadings as contained in the counter-affidavit of the respondent to which attention has been drawn by learned Counsel for the respondent. 20. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, has submitted that the respondent has no objection for citing Mr. Ashok M., K.A.S., returning officer and Sri Mahesh K. S/o. Kandaswamy M., as witnesses, particularly to add to the list of witnesses already found, which now survives, with the name of petitioner only. 21. On the other hand, Sri Shashikantha, learned Counsel for the respondent has serious objection for citing the respondent himself as a witness on behalf the petitioner. 22. This objection is well-taken and sustained. Petitioner cannot expect the respondent to come and depose on her behalf in a petition which is essentially an adversarial litigation, though has the flavour of involving public interest also and therefore treating the application as a supplementary list of witnesses, the application in Misc. Civil No. 9158 of 2010 is ordered to the extent of adding Mr. Ashok M., KAS, Returning Officer, K.R. Puram Assembly Constituency and Sri Mahesh K. S/o Kandaswamy M., as other witnesses on behalf of the petitioner and not for more. Authorities cited by the petitioner does not advance the case of the petitioner for anything more than this. 23. Civil No. 9158 of 2010 is ordered to the extent of adding Mr. Ashok M., KAS, Returning Officer, K.R. Puram Assembly Constituency and Sri Mahesh K. S/o Kandaswamy M., as other witnesses on behalf of the petitioner and not for more. Authorities cited by the petitioner does not advance the case of the petitioner for anything more than this. 23. Insofar as application in Misc, Civil No. 9767 of 2010 is concerned, which is an application made under Section 151 of CPC read with Section 87 of the Act, without any specific prayer, except for allowing the application, supported by an affidavit sworn to by the petitioner, there is no application in the eye of the law for want of a specific power. 24. Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Lakhan v Ram Charitra AIR 1995 All 198, to support her submission that the High Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC to grant relief etc. Submissions is not of much significance, as no specific relief is forthcoming in this application and even assuming that it is for the purpose of issuing directions by this Court to summon the authorities having information about the functioning of the Returning Officer as they were present at the place and as possible witnesses, such officials and security personnel who were present and witnessed the developments before the Returning Officer on the day when the petitioner had sought to present her nomination etc., they having not been named and this question having already been examined and answered above. 25. I have already dealt thisaspect while examining the other application (Misc. Civil No. 9158 of 2010) and at the cost of repetition, it is to be reiterated that the Election Tribunal will not exercise such powers as are possessed by a Writ Court for the purpose of summoning all and Sundry, but has to confine the exercise of power only in respect of such persons who are to be examined as witnesses and who are identifiable with sufficient and accurate particulars and whose appearance has relevance in the context of the pleadings of the parties and not otherwise. The application being without any specific prayer etc., is rejected, for the reasons already indicated above. 26. The application being without any specific prayer etc., is rejected, for the reasons already indicated above. 26. With the passing of this order, while the list of witnesses on behalf of the petitioner is finalized, as above the list of witnesses as furnished by the respondent comprising three names viz., (1) Nandiesha Reddy (respondent); (2) Ashwin Kumar Sharma; and (3) Umesh L. is accepted. 27. The election petition is to be listed for the evidence of petitioner on 27-08-2010 28. In the meanwhile, it is also open to the petitioner to file an application for issue of summons to other witnesses.