JUDGMENT Mr. Shashikantha C, learned counsel for the respondent wants to pose the following suggestion and elicit the answer from the petitioner. “I suggest to you that two additional proposers names found at half green sheet in Ex.P1 are not electors as per current electoral roll used for the election in question and they are fictitious persons.” 2. Petitioner who is deposing, is the first witness being cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent. Petitioner also happens to be an Advocate by profession and is conducting her case by herself as an “Advocate – in-person” as described by the Supreme Court. 3. At the beginning of the proceedings of the day when the matter was taken up, petitioner had made a submission that the learned counsel for the respondent has been exceeding his limits as a counsel for examining a witness and the petitioner is virtually being subjected to harassment in the guise of cross-examination and therefore, petitioner seeks the proceedings being regulated, to protect her interest both in the capacity as an Advocate-in-person and as a petitioner who has deposed in support of her case and has sought permission of the Court to respond suitably and if necessary, by addressing arguments, even while she continues to depose before the Court, as she is performing the dual role of deposing as a witness and conducting her case herself as an advocate – party-in-person and has sought for the permission of the Court to step out of the witness box as and when she has to play the role of advocate-in-person to oppose an irrelevant or unreasonable question being posed during the course of cross-examination. 4. Court does not take away anybody’s rights or confer any rights on any person, which the party himself/herself does not have. Judicial proceedings is only to ascertain as to whether a right of a party is in any affected or eroded by any other person, whether a private adversary or even a public authority in the governance or system of the society, the scrutiny and examination by the court is the same. 5. However, conduct of proceedings is regulated by the procedural law and there are good numbers of areas where even while following the procedure as prescribed by law, the presiding officer of the Court has to exercise discretion to regulate the proceedings. ‘6. 5. However, conduct of proceedings is regulated by the procedural law and there are good numbers of areas where even while following the procedure as prescribed by law, the presiding officer of the Court has to exercise discretion to regulate the proceedings. ‘6. Procedural regulation by Judges will not confer or take away any rights but it is nevertheless understood and it is the common perception that every provision of the Code of Civil Procedure is one conferring a right on the litigant. It is not a right. Codification of procedural laws is to ensure that there is a method in the conduct of court proceedings; that the adherence to the procedure facilitates, a satisfactory resolution of the dispute before the Court, in a proper methodical manner, without giving scope for one party or the other to indulge in an ‘one-upmanship’. 7. Petitioner has objected to the question being put on the premise that she has already been cross-examined extensively with reference to Ex.P1 and posing questions time and again on the very document even when the learned counsel for the respondent has crossed over the stage of cross examining the petitioner on the contents of Ex.P1 and is cross-examining the petitioner on aspects relating to Ex.P3 and when that stage is over. 8. The recording of the deposition of the petitioner as recorded on 17.02.2011 on which day the petitioner was cross-examined during the entire morning session of the Court proceedings virtually running to about 3 hours, indicates that the petitioner has already been cross-examined on the document marked as Ex.P1 and this is recorded in paragraph 37 of the deposition and the recording runs to about 13-14 pages. 9. While the CPC enjoins when once the deposition has commenced i.e. when once trial has began it should go on day to day basis. Petition of the present nature an Election Petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, is a petition which is to be disposed of expeditiously, particularly, having regard to the large public importance attached to the disposal of an election dispute. 10. Petition of the present nature an Election Petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, is a petition which is to be disposed of expeditiously, particularly, having regard to the large public importance attached to the disposal of an election dispute. 10. These disputes arising in the context of General Elections held to the State Assembly or the Parliament and the High Court being constituted as the Election Tribunal under the Representation of People Act, 1951, speed, urgency and expeditious disposal of the petition is the sine qua non of an Election Petition and this aspect has been emphasized by the Supreme Court also in a good number of judgments. 11. The present Election Petition is already 2 and ½ years old and has just reached the trial stage. It is submitted at the bar that the orders passed by this Court on Interlocutory Applications has seen the Supreme Court in two special leave petitions. This phenomenon is not any exception to this Election Petition alone, but is a typical development in any Election Petition. 12. Election Petition can be characterized more as a luxury litigation. An Election petition consuming the precious, scarce time of the High Court as the High Court has to function as the Election Tribunal is more in the nature of a luxury litigation. 13. What with the players in the Election Petition being by and large affluent persons as in our present electoral system there is not much scope for persons without money though may desire to contest Election. On many a times muscle power also matters and all sorts of the malpractice’s being the order of the day and in any Election process the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951, being observed more in breach, than by adherence, one can expect the declaration of any election to be questioned before the Election tribunal, as is enabled under the provisions of Section 81 of the Act. 14. No doubt, it is a right conferred on a candidate or even an elector, who feels dissatisfied by the declaration of the result and also constitutes a statutory duty on the High Court. It does not necessarily mean that an Election Petition should keep consuming the time of the Court endlessly and the conduct should be obstructed or the smooth conduct of the trial should be prevented by any one. 15. Though Sri. It does not necessarily mean that an Election Petition should keep consuming the time of the Court endlessly and the conduct should be obstructed or the smooth conduct of the trial should be prevented by any one. 15. Though Sri. Shashikantha, C, learned counsel for the respondent points out that it is the right of the litigant to pose or confront any question to a witness who has already deposed and definitely when the witness is still disposing and recording evidence is not yet concluded and, particularly as in this case the petitioner is still being cross-examined and just because the stage of examination has crossed with reference to Ex.P1 and cross examination of the witness in the context the subsequent document is over, it does not necessarily mean that a relevant question quoted cannot be put to witness nor the petitioner be permitted to object to the same on the ground personal inconvenience, I am of the definite opinion, that the question irrespective of the reasons cited above cannot be permitted to be posed to the witness, as part of the responsibility for regulating the proceedings and particularly, as the trial which should go on, on day to day basis is not happening in the present case. Just because there are breaks in between the sessions as the recording stops at the end of the session and can be resumed only on the next date and an opportunity develops to the counsel and more questions are prepared by the counsel during the interval, the counsel should be permitted to putforth fresh questions in respect of the very same document about which the witness has already been extensively cross examined. 16. It is nothing short of a misuse of the court time and definitely amounts to harassment to a witness just because in the present case, the petitioner herself is conducting her case and is also deposing as a witness that the petitioner should be permitted to be harassed or put to inconvenience. 17. It is very important in our system that the witness is troubled in the least, as even an appearance before the Court, that too, is by and large perceived as harassment and no one voluntarily comes forward to depose and to speak the truth and in the present system, court proceedings themselves are a pain to a litigant than a pleasure. It was the common usage and talk in or rural areas that if you want to destroy a person you must start litigation against him, such is the reputation enjoyed by court litigation in this country. In this background it is the duty of the Court/Judges to see that the witnesses are not subjected to unnecessary harassment. 18. Though this question was disallowed at the very poser, indicating the reason as learned counsel for the respondent submits that when once the question was put to the witness it has to be recorded and has requested that the question should go on record and denial of this opportunity, should also be recorded, which has necessitated to pass this lengthy order, to put the record straight. 19. Particularly, with the development of the nature that every order of this Court as is being made subject matter in appeal, more often than not and with appellate courts turning out to be courts acting as appellate authorities on persons rather than acting as appellate courts on the merits of the order and this in my humble opinion is a very unhealthy and an undesirable development the fact is so. 20. Be that as it may, the question is disallowed and the counsel to proceed to the next question.