JUDGMENT Mr. R.P. Nagrath, J.: - The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 7.11.2014, passed by the Election Tribunal closing the evidence of petitioner by order. 2. Respondent No. 2-Harpreet Kaur has filed a petition (Annexure P-1) under Sections 74, 75 and 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short to be hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder declaring the election of petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Saidpur, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib as null and void. Respondent No. 3-Harbans Kaur also contested the aforesaid election. The elections were held on 3.7.2013. It was stated that the petitioner was in fact serving as a teacher in Government Elementary School, Saidpura under the supervision and management of Gram Panchayat of the village and receiving salary from the Gram Panchayat. It was, thus, stated that respondent No. 1-petitioner was not eligible to contest the elections but her nomination papers were wrongly accepted. 3. It was further stated that Returning Officer on counting of votes initially announced that respondent No. 2 secured 249 votes and the petitioner secured 244 votes but later on it was disclosed that respondent No. 2 secured 239 votes and the petitioner herein secured 254 votes whereas respondent No. 3 the other candidate secured 7 votes. The cancelled votes were polled in favour of respondent No. 2 who is petitioner before the Election Tribunal. 4. The petitioner in her reply to the election petition admitted that she was serving as a teacher under the supervision of Gram Panchayat and receiving salary but she in fact had submitted resignation to the Administrator on 1.6.2013 and to the Gram Panchayat on 18.6.2013 which was accepted by the Managing Committee on the same day itself. So on the date of filing nomination, she was not employed. The other allegations with regard to counting were disputed. 5. The impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal dated 7.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) is reproduced as under:- “Petition presented. Case called. Clerk of counsel for the petitioner is present and respondent or her counsel are not present. No evidence led by respondent counsel on last three dates and respondent or her counsel has not come present in this Court on last two dates. Case called. Clerk of counsel for the petitioner is present and respondent or her counsel are not present. No evidence led by respondent counsel on last three dates and respondent or her counsel has not come present in this Court on last two dates. So evidence of respondent is closed and the case is adjourned for arguments for 11.11.2014.” 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order closing evidence is harsh and petitioner may be granted only one opportunity to produce entire evidence at responsibility. 8. I am unable to agree with the above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, because disposal of election petitions has to be expeditious in view of its very nature. It is not that evidence of the petitioner was closed only on the first date, rather three opportunities were granted by the Election Tribunal to the petitioner for leading evidence. Any latitude in the nature of proceedings pending before the Election Tribunal would defeat the very purpose of the petition as there is always a limited tenure of elected candidates for such kind of office. This was not a civil suit where some laxity or liberty could be extended in favour of the petitioner. 9. It would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act relating to the proceedings to be adopted. Section 80 of the Act deals with the trial of election petitions. Sub-section (5) and (6) of Section 80 read as under:- “Section 80. Trial of election petitions.- (1) to (4) xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) The trial of an election petition shall, so far as is practicable consistently with the interest of justice in respect of the trial be continued from day to day until the conclusion, unless the Election Tribunal finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing. (6) Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and every endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date on which the election is presented to the Election Tribunal for trial.” 10. The petition was instituted before the Tribunal on 12.7.2013 and more than one year has already elapsed. (6) Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and every endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date on which the election is presented to the Election Tribunal for trial.” 10. The petition was instituted before the Tribunal on 12.7.2013 and more than one year has already elapsed. The requirement of Section 80 (6) of the Act is for an endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date on which the petition is presented to the Tribunal for trial. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not even put forward the nature of evidence that is proposed to be produced. By referring to the interim orders of the previous dates even or from the proceedings being held by the Tribunal, the petitioner has not been able to suggest any circumstance calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. No merits. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————