JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging validity of the order dated 4.3.2013 whereby his application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 (2) CPC in election petition filed by the respondent No.1 was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that election officer was shown as witness in the election petition but not produced before the Court, therefore, for proper adjudication an application was filed under Order 16 Rule 1 (2) CPC for summoning the said witness for the purpose of recording his evidence but trial Court rejected the same vide impugned order, which is not proper in view of the fact that the evidence of the election officer is necessary to adjudicate the controversy. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because the order impugned is justified. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the evidence of the election officer in the election petition is necessary to adjudicate the election dispute, therefore, the order impugned is hereby quashed with direction to the trial Court to summon the election officer and record his statement within a period of three weeks, thereafter proceed in the trial in accordance with law. It is made clear that at the time of recording statement of election officer only one opportunity may be given to the petitioner to cross-examination his witness. 6. The writ petition is allowed in above terms.Writ Petition Allowed. *******