ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the contesting respondent no.5 and for the State Election Commission. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 3.4.2012 passed by Munsif, Sadar-cum- Election Tribunal, Purnea in Election Petition No. 13/2011 by which he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Order-12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for inspection of 31 votes polled in booth nos. 185 and 186 by the same voters in favour of respondent no.5 and to recast the result of the election by ignoring the double votes polled by the same voters and for consequential directions. 3. The petitioner, respondent no. 5 and other private respondents had contested the election for the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Pipra on 24.4.2011 and the respondent no. 5 emerged as the successful candidate after the election and was declared elected by a margin of 24 votes, having obtained 1654 valid votes as against the petitioner who had received 1630 valid votes. The petitioner filed the election petition taking a clear stand that as many as 31 voters had been shown as voters in Ward No. 1 and Ward No.2 who had cast their votes in Booth Nos. 185 and 186 both in favour of respondent no.5. Accordingly, the prayer was for recounting of the votes and declaring the petitioner elected as the stand of the petitioner is that all those 31 voters are supporters of respondent no.5. 4. In the written statement filed by the respondent no.5, the fact that 31 such voters had their names in two voter lists and had actually cast their votes twice in booth nos. 185 and 186 was admitted and the only dispute raised was that they were not supporters of respondent no. 5 rather they were the supporters of the petitioner. 5. In view of the said admission the petitioner filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the inspection of 31 votes polled in booth nos. 185 and 186 by the same and common voters and a prayer was made that the double votes polled by 31 voters be declared void under Section 126A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and thereafter the result of the election may be recast and the candidate securing highest valid votes may be declared elected. 6. 185 and 186 by the same and common voters and a prayer was made that the double votes polled by 31 voters be declared void under Section 126A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and thereafter the result of the election may be recast and the candidate securing highest valid votes may be declared elected. 6. In the rejoinder to the said application filed by respondent no. 5 the stand was taken that it was not admitted that the said alleged voters cast their votes twice which appears to be contrary to the stand taken in the written statement. Learned Munsif –cum-Election Tribunal by his order dated 3.4.2012 rejected the petition filed by the petitioner against which the petitioner has come to this Court in the present writ application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Munsif has seriously erred in rejecting the petition on the ground of the alleged admission which does fit into the frame of admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that the admission having been made regarding the casting of votes twice in the written statement a mere fact that it is stated that such votes have been cast in favour of the petitioner and not respondent no. 5 is not something which can be decided by evidence led by either party as no party can make any such conclusive claim as to in whose favour the votes have been cast. It is urged that in such circumstances, the only option for the learned Election Tribunal was to have called for the counter foils of the votes cast in both the booths and upon being satisfied that 31 voters common to both the booths had actually cast their votes he ought to have thereafter rejected the votes polled by them and recast the result of the elections accordingly as all the votes cast twice by such elector would be invalid in terms of Section 126 A of the Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. 8. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner is not at all interested in pursuing any other point raised in the election petition, and as a matter of fact, has filed an affidavit in this Court undertaking that the election petition shall be confined by him to the issue of casting double votes by 31 voters and no other issue shall be raised. 9. In support of the aforesaid stand learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India & Others: (2000) 7 SCC 120 in para-12 of which it has been held as follows:- “12. As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending the said Rule, it is stated that “where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled”. We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5, on the other hands, submits that the Election Tribunal has rightly rejected the application and the petitioner should not be permitted to make fishing and roving enquiry by inspecting the ballots so as to make out his case. 11. It is further submitted that unless there was a clear unequivocal admission by the respondent no.5 there can be no application of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon several decisions, the first being in the case of Fulena Singh Vs. 11. It is further submitted that unless there was a clear unequivocal admission by the respondent no.5 there can be no application of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon several decisions, the first being in the case of Fulena Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar Sinha and others: (2009) 5 SCC 290 ; paras 17 and 19, relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent no.5, are quoted below:- “17. It is true that the election petitioner adduced evidence on his behalf by examining seven witnesses. The learned trial Judge observed that all the witnesses “have supported the allegation of double voting at more than one booth by relations and supporters of Respondent No.1. Some of the witnesses have specifically given the names of such voters whose names appear in voter’s list at more than one place”. That is all the discussion about the evidence and material available on record. The learned trial Judge did not assign any reason whatsoever in support of his conclusion permitting the parties to inspect the registers of voters in Form 17-A. The learned trial Judge allowed the application as a matter of course. We find it very difficult to sustain such laconic and unreasoned order which may have a serious bearing on the questions that arise for consideration in the main election petition which is still awaiting trial and disposal.” 19. Be it noted the prayer in the election petition is to set aside the election of the appellant and declare the respondent election petitioner to have been duly elected from 172, Lakhisarai Assembly Constituency after scrutiny, inspection and recounting of ballot papers. Similar is the prayer in the application disposed of by the learned trial Judge resulting in passing of the impugned order. The grant or refusal of the prayer in the election petition to a large extent depends upon the decision as to whether parties have to be permitted to inspect the registers in Form 17-A. It would be appropriate to decide the main election petition in order to finally resolve the lis between the parties.” 12. Learned counsel also relies upon paras 4 and 6 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hari Ram Vs. Hira Singh & Ors. : AIR 1984 SC 396 in this regard. 13. Learned counsel also relies upon paras 4 and 6 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hari Ram Vs. Hira Singh & Ors. : AIR 1984 SC 396 in this regard. 13. With regard to Order 12 Rule 6, he relies upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dena Bank, Vs. M/s. Bindal Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. : AIR 1992 Delhi 171, in para-7 of which it has been observed as follows:- “7. In this case, as already stated, firstly there is no clear and unequivocal admission by the defendants and further the issues framed involve determination of question of facts which cannot be disposed of on motion under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and without leading evidence in support of the facts. Decision on certain issues in favour of the defendants can result into the dismissal of the suit against the plaintiff and in fact go to the root of the case. In these circumstances, no decree can be passed under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as prayed for by the plaintiff on the basis of so-called admission. The application is, therefore, dismissed.” 14. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and the documents annexed to the writ petition including the election petition and the written statement of respondent no.5. It is evident from perusal of the same that there is clear statement by the petitioner that 31 voters were common in Ward Nos. 1 and 2 and they were supporters of respondent no.5 and further they cast their votes in booth nos. 185 and 186. From the written statement of respondent no.5 it is further evident that the votes of said 31 voters being common having their names at both the Ward Nos. 1 and 2 and having cast their votes at booth nos. 185 and 186, is admitted and the only issue raised by the respondent no. 5 is that they were not supporters of respondent no. 5 rather they were supporters of the petitioner and have cast their votes in favour of the petitioner. 15. 1 and 2 and having cast their votes at booth nos. 185 and 186, is admitted and the only issue raised by the respondent no. 5 is that they were not supporters of respondent no. 5 rather they were supporters of the petitioner and have cast their votes in favour of the petitioner. 15. It is evident from the said pleadings of the parties, that the question as to whether 31 voters were having their names in two wards and have, as a matter of fact, cast their votes twice in booth nos. 185 and 186 stands admitted. The only area of dispute is as to whether they have cast their votes in favour of the respondent no. 5 or the petitioner. The said fact can never be ascertained with certainty by any party to an election petition as the casting of ballots is secret. Thus, when the fact of such voters having actually cast their votes twice stands admitted it means that the votes polled by them, i.e., 31x2= 62 votes would be invalid in terms of Section 126 A of the Act. The only way out in such a situation would be to verify as to for whom such votes had been cast and thereafter adjust the total votes cast for the different candidates after declaring those votes as invalid. 16. This Court is in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that the Election Tribunal cannot be straightaway directed to open the ballot boxes in the matter but must first examine counter foils of the votes cast belonging to booth nos. 185 and 186 so as to verify whether such voters had actually cast their votes twice and on finding so, to open the ballot boxes so as to look into the votes cast by them and declare them as invalid and recast the result accordingly. 17. So far as the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this is not a case where the petitioner seeks recounting of the ballot papers only by way of fishing enquiry so as to make out a case against the winning candidate. The case has been clearly laid down in the election petition and so far as the fact of double voting is concerned the same also stands admitted. The case has been clearly laid down in the election petition and so far as the fact of double voting is concerned the same also stands admitted. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner not to raise any other issue in the election petition no other question remains to be decided. 18. From the facts of the case, I am of the view that while Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not have full application in the present matter as no judgment can be rendered merely on the admission made but the principles laid down therein could have been applied to shorten the litigation as the parties do not at all question the fact that double votes have been cast. In this regard reliance by learned counsel for respondent no. 5 on Fulena Singh’s case (supra) can be of no avail as in the said case there was no admission by the winning candidate, rather there was denial, inter alia, of the allegations having been made in the election petition which is not the position in the present matter so far as the basic issue is concerned. 19. However, I am conscious of the fact that the learned Munsif has mentioned that in the present election petition the case was at the stage of framing of issues. In view of the fact that the petitioner does not intend to contest the election petition on any other issue except the issue which has also been accepted as the main issue by the Election Tribunal, the same cannot be of any moment so far as the question of rejection of petition under Order 12 Rule 6 is concerned. The Tribunal could have proceeded to frame the issues and thereafter proceeded in the matter as pointed out. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The Tribunal could have proceeded to frame the issues and thereafter proceeded in the matter as pointed out. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3.4.2012 passed by the Munsif Sadar-cum-Election Tribunal, Purnea in Election Petition No. 13/2011 is set aside and he is directed to proceed in the matter by first framing the issues, and in view of the undertaking of the petitioner the same shall be limited to the question of casting of duplicate votes by 31 voters and thereafter he shall take steps to examine the counter foils of the votes and, if required, after taking out the ballot papers cast by the said voters and after declaring them as illegal, recast the result without looking into any other ballot paper polled by any other person. 21. Since two years have already elapsed in the matter, let the election petition be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today.