JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. As both the writ petitions arise out of Election Petition No.15 of 2012 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order, after analogous hearing, with consent by learned counsels for the parties. 2. In W.P. (C) No.8540 of 2014, order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh in the aforesaid Election Petition in rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for amendment of the show-cause / written statement is impugned. In W.P. (C) No.9084 of 2014, order dated 02.05.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh in the aforesaid Election Petition in rejecting the petition filed by the present petitioner to call for certain documents from the concerned authorities, which are asserted to be relevant documents for the purpose of deciding the dispute between the parties, is impugned. 3. The present opposite party no.1 initiated the election dispute vide Election Petition No.15 of 2012 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh to declare the election of the present petitioner as the Chairman of Dasapalla Panchayat Samiti as void. The present petitioner was issued with Notice and he filed his written statement / show-cause. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, learned Court below framed as many as seven Issues, out of which Issue No.5 is to the effect whether opposite party no.1 (present petitioner) does not belong to the category of O.B.C. being “Telungu” by caste. Both the parties were given opportunities to adduce evidence. After hearing the parties, learned Election Tribunal disposed of the Election Petition answering Issue No.5 against the present petitioner. The present petitioner preferred appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Nayagarh. The appeal came to be disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Nayagarh in Election Appeal Case No.1/3 of 2013. Learned Additional District Judge, Nayagarh remanded the matter to the learned Election Tribunal with a direction to frame two additional Issues and to answer Issue No.5 on the basis of the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Dasapalla, which had been issued on confirmation of the earlier order of the Tahsildar by himself on remand from the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh in appeal. 4. 4. The additional Issues which have been framed by the appellate court are as follows :- (i) Whether the Tahsildar, Dasapalla is competent to enquire about the caste of the appellant and he has properly enquired, and the order passed by the Tahsildar, Dasapalla is legal and has binding effect upon the parties (ii) Whether Respondent No.1 is competent to challenge the election of the appellant to the post of Samiti Member of Kujamendhi Gram Panchayat and is an aggrieved person. 5. The background fact for framing these additional issues is that, Caste Certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Dasapalla in favour of the petitioner showing him as belonging to “Kachara” caste. The documents filed by the election petitioner before the Election Tribunal vide Exts.1 and 2, Hal R.O.R. in respect of Khata No.9 of mouza Kujamendhi and final R.O.R. which was prepared pursuant to the order passed in Mutation Case No.850 of 2010 relating to Khata No.65/38 of mouza Kujamendhi respectively shows that the present petitioner belongs to “Telangu” caste, which does not come under O.B.C. (Other Backward Classes) category. The present petitioner as opposite party in the Election Petition had filed show-cause averring therein that he belongs to “Kachara” caste and the hereditary profession of the people of “Kachara” community is to do business in selling bangles to the ladies. It was further averred in the show-cause that the forefather of opposite party no1 being “Telgu” speaking migrants from South India and settled in different parts of Odisha since long, came to be known by the names of ‘Telgu’, ‘Telanga’, ‘Telengu’ and popularly as ‘Kachara’ and ‘Telanga Kachara’ since their time honoured profession was / is to sell bangles and to live on that. For that reason, as averred in the show-cause, the Settlement Authorities described the caste in different names in different areas according to the choice and local preference of the people, but the original caste of the petitioner remained ‘Kachara’. 6. Further, the present petitioner was elected as Samiti Member from Kujamendhi Gram Panchayat, which is a seat reserved for O.B.C. community. One Upendra Sahu, the defeated candidate from Kujamendhi Gram Panchayat has filed Election Misc. Case No.2 of 2012 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh, disputing the result of the election of the present petitioner to the post of Samiti Member of Kujamendhi Gram Panchayat. One Upendra Sahu, the defeated candidate from Kujamendhi Gram Panchayat has filed Election Misc. Case No.2 of 2012 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nayagarh, disputing the result of the election of the present petitioner to the post of Samiti Member of Kujamendhi Gram Panchayat. The petitioner, after being elected as the Samiti Member from Kujamendhi Gram Panchayat, contested for the post of Chairman of Dasapalla Panchayat Samiti and it is an admitted fact that the post of Chairman of Dasapalla Panchayat Samiti is an unreserved seat and the same is not reserved for any community. The question that was raised by the petitioner on the technicalities is that the post of Chairman, Dasapalla Panchayat Samiti is not a reserved seat and consequentially the election of the petitioner as Samiti Member from Kujamendhi Gram Panchayat is to be declared as void, and whether the present opposite party no.1 as the election petitioner could have been competent to challenge the election of the petitioner to the post of Samiti Member of Kujamendhi Gram Panchayat as an aggrieved person. 7. As the Issues framed by the learned Election Tribunal had not embraced the aforesaid facts and answer to the aforesaid issues was relevant for deciding the case, learned appellate court framed two additional Issues, as aforesaid, and remanded the matter for disposal afresh. 8. After the remand, present opposite party no.1 as the election petitioner adduced evidence. The present petitioner also participated in the proceeding and adduced evidence. On 15.01.2014 learned counsel for the present petitioner filed a petition under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. read with Section 151 thereof with a prayer to amend the show-cause filed on behalf of the present petitioner as opposite party no.1 in the Election Petition by adding paragraph-6(a) and paragraphs 10(a) & (b) after paragraphs-6 and 10 of the show-cause respectively, as proposed in the Schedule of the petition. On 24.04.2014 the counsel for the present petitioner filed another petition to call for the original ‘Yaddast’ No.588 dated 23.08.1997 of mouza Kujamendhi along with the original R.O.R. from the office of the Additional Sub-Collector in-charge of Settlement, Pastima Dwara, Puri and to call for the original record in Mutation Case No.850/2010 along with the original R.O.R. and Intimation-A, Slip of Khata No.65/38 from the office of the Tahsildar, Dasapalla for ascertaining the real caste of opposite party no.1 for a just decision in the case. The petition for amendment filed on 15.01.2014 was rejected vide order dated 09.04.2014 impugned in W.P. (C) No.8540 of 2014 and the petition dated 24.04.2014 to call for certain documents was rejected vide order dated 02.05.2014 impugned in W.P. (C) No.9084 of 2014. 9. Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.8540 of 2014, submits that the petitioner having sought for bringing some subsequent events on record by amending the show-cause and such amendment having no potency of changing the nature of the lis, the amendment sought should have been allowed. He further submits that the petitioner has simply sought for elaboration / elucidation of certain facts relating to his caste as ‘Kachara’ and there is no bar for bringing such elucidation / elaboration on record at any point of time during trial, as the same does not change the nature and character of the lis. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel that delay has no relevance so far as amendment of a petition is concerned, and learned Election Tribunal having not given a finding as to how the present opposite party no.1 is going to be prejudiced, if the amendments are brought on record, the impugned order becomes vulnerable and in absence of any prejudice being caused to the present opposite party no.1, the amendment sought for should have been allowed. 10. Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 vehemently submits about the conduct of the present petitioner in rushing to this Court against all the interim orders passed by the Election Tribunal just with a view to delay the proceeding, so that the term of his office shall expire before disposal of the election dispute. 10. Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 vehemently submits about the conduct of the present petitioner in rushing to this Court against all the interim orders passed by the Election Tribunal just with a view to delay the proceeding, so that the term of his office shall expire before disposal of the election dispute. Election dispute being a statutory remedy and disposal of the same being time bound, any sort of delay in disposal of the proceeding has serious effect and such delay / inaction by one of the parties itself is prejudicial to the adversary party and no specific finding in that regard aught to have been given by the learned Election Tribunal. He further submits that the petitioner being in know of the facts constituting the elaboration / elucidation sought to be introduced through amendment, could have brought the same on record at appropriate time or from the beginning, if he would have been little bit diligent and he would have been alive to the “burden of proof” on him in a matter relating to proving his caste. He further submits that so far as the amendment sought to be brought on record vide paragraph-10-A is concerned, those being elaboration of legal aspects, the same has been rightly rejected and other amendment sought to be brought on record have also been rightly rejected on grounds of delay. He emphatically submits that the impugned order needs no interference. 11. Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, learned senior counsel, in order to substantiate his contention, relies on the case of Estralla Rubber vrs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 , Abdul Rehman & Anr. vrs. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors., 2012 (II) CLR (SC) – 1196, Jayanta Kumar Sahu vrs. Laxmidhar Sahu, 2013 (1) CLR – 708 and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vrs. Shri Rajiv Gandhi, A.I.R. 1987 SC 1577. Mr. Pitambar acharya, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party no.1, on the other hand, relies on the case of Kailash vrs. Nanhku and others, (2005) 4 SCC 480 , Jyoti Basu and others vrs. Debi Ghosal and others, A.I.R. 1982 SC 983, Soneswar Borah vrs. Nagen Neog and others, A.I.R. 1987 Gau. 11, Bishnu Prasad Das vrs. Election Officer-cum-B.D.O. and others, 2003 (supp.) OLR-651, Suresh Kumar Azad vrs. State & others, 1993 (1) OLR-563. 12. Nanhku and others, (2005) 4 SCC 480 , Jyoti Basu and others vrs. Debi Ghosal and others, A.I.R. 1982 SC 983, Soneswar Borah vrs. Nagen Neog and others, A.I.R. 1987 Gau. 11, Bishnu Prasad Das vrs. Election Officer-cum-B.D.O. and others, 2003 (supp.) OLR-651, Suresh Kumar Azad vrs. State & others, 1993 (1) OLR-563. 12. From the amendment petition filed vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it is found that the petitioner has sought to bring on record some elucidation / elaboration regarding the caste he belongs to, and such amendment is contained in paragraph 6 (a). In paragraph 10 (a), the petitioner has elaborated certain settled law and has sought to plead about Section 44 (c) and Section 45 (b) of Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act and as to whether opposite party no.1 being a contestant for the post of Chairman, Dasapalla Panchayat Samiti could have challenged the election of the petitioner as Samiti Member from Kujamendhi Gram Panchayat. In paragraph 10 (b), the petitioner has sought to bring amendment to the effect that, after remand from the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh, the Tahsildar has again issued the caste certificate in the name of the petitioner showing him as ‘Kachara’ by caste, which is a fact taking place after filing of the election petition. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Estralla Rubber (supra) has held that “delay on its own is not a ground for rejection of the application for amendment of the pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. Unless serious prejudice would be caused to the other party and accrued right taken away as a result the application for amendment ought to be allowed.” In Abdul Rehman and Anr. (supra), in paragraph-7 of the judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between them. The Courts are to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial. If such application is made after commencement of the trial, in that event the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. If such application is made after commencement of the trial, in that event the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. In the case of Jayanta Kumar Sahu (supra), this Court has held that elucidation of some facts, which are already there on record, can be allowed when the defendant would not be taken by surprise. In the case of Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. no doubt permits amendment of an election petition, but the same is subject to the provision of the Act. 14. Summing up the aforesaid law, it is clear that permission to bring on record amendment of pleadings by any of the parties is not to be allowed as a matter of course. If the amendment is sought to be brought on record before commencement of the trial, judicial discretion should be applied with a tilt towards the party seeking the amendment. But, if the amendment is sought for after commencement of the trial, the discretion is to be detached from the liberal tilt towards the party seeking amendment, and it is to be seen and a conclusion is to be arrived at whether in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the same before commencement of the trial. 15. Election dispute is unlike a civil suit simplicitor governed by the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jyoti Basu and others (supra), in paragraph-8 of the judgment has held thus :- “8. A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a Common Law Right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An election petition is not an action at Common Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common law nor the principles of equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An election petition is not an action at Common Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common law nor the principles of equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged policy because policy in such matters, as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in a straight jacket…….” 16. Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, in the case of Soneswar Borah vrs. Nagen Neog and others (supra) has held thus :- “The technicalities of the Code should not make the progress of the trial of an election petition difficult. However, it must be consistent with the interests of justice. As such, the expression “as nearly as may be” shows only an approximation. In the other words, an election Court shall be guided by the spirit of the Code, but shall not be bound by the letter of the Code.” 17. In the case of Kailash vrs. Nanhku and others (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the procedure provided for trial of civil suits under the C.P.C. is not applicable in its entirety to a trial of election petition. In paragraph – 46 (ii) of the judgment, while summing up the discussion, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus : “On the language of Section 87 (I) of the Act, it is clear that the applicability of the procedure provided for the trial of suits to the trial of election petitions is not attracted with all its rigidity and technicality. The rules of procedure contained in CPC apply to the trial of election petitions under the Act with flexibility and only as guidelines.” 18. An election petition is to be tried expeditiously. If the election dispute is not disposed of before expiry of the term of the elected member whose election is at issue, the election petition becomes infructuous. The rules of procedure contained in CPC apply to the trial of election petitions under the Act with flexibility and only as guidelines.” 18. An election petition is to be tried expeditiously. If the election dispute is not disposed of before expiry of the term of the elected member whose election is at issue, the election petition becomes infructuous. Any sort of delay by any of the parties or any dilatory tactics by any of the parties is always prejudicial to the interest of the adversary party in an election dispute. If a party is left free to control the proceeding in the guise of procedure, then the result would become disastrous. Either the election petition cannot be disposed of in due time or it will be disposed of in hot haste causing prejudice to the other party. In an election dispute, therefore, prejudice is inherent on the part of the defeated candidate, who has raised the election dispute, if delay of any sort is caused in disposing of the election dispute in time. It is immaterial whether there is finding or no finding regarding prejudice which is impugned vehemently by Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present case. 19. Taking into consideration the nature of the lis, settled law in the background and the amendment sought to be brought on record, I am of the view that if there has been delay in bringing the amendment on record, there is bound to be prejudice on the part of the adversary party. 20. Now, let me find out at what stage the proposed amendment is sought for. The proposed amendment has been sought for after evidence by the petitioner himself on remand of the matter. This Court, in the case of Gauranga Naik vrs. Collector, Sambalpur & others, 2010 (II) OLR – 174, has held that in proving a Caste Certificate after the initial burden of proof is discharged showing that the returned candidate does not belong to Scheduled Caste, burden lies with the returned candidate to prove that he belongs to that caste. This being the settled law, the petitioner and his counsel must have been alive to the burden of proof lying on them. They have diligently participated in the proceeding. This being the settled law, the petitioner and his counsel must have been alive to the burden of proof lying on them. They have diligently participated in the proceeding. On every drop of the hat the petitioner has rushed to this Court against all sorts of interim order passed by the Election Tribunal. In some cases he has got relief, in some cases no relief has he got. I desist myself from recounting the case numbers, the petitioners have preferred before this Court in course of the election proceeding for the sake of brevity only. But such conduct of the petitioner shows that he is throughout diligent in the proceeding from the very beginning. 21. The present opposite party no.1 by proving Exts.1 and 2 had discharged his initial burden so far as proving the caste of the petitioner is concerned. In the Record of Right the petitioner is not described as a person belonging to ‘Kachara’ caste. But the Tahsildar has given him Certificate showing him as belonging to ‘Kachara’ caste. If any elaboration / elucidation was thought proper, the petitioner could have brought such elaboration / elucidation on record much before without waiting till the matter is remanded and he has adduced his evidence, because he had the special knowledge of the genesis of his caste. Similarly, so far as the competence of opposite party no.1 to question the election of the petitioner as Samiti Member from Kujamendhi Gram Panchayat is concerned, that is a fact known to the present petitioner from the very beginning of the election dispute, and there is some averments also in the show-cause of the petitioner on this point, and the petitioner has sought to bring on record certain legal aspect which is not necessary to be pleaded. I do not think it proper to allow such an amendment at such belated stage. 22. So far as confirmation of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner reissued by the Tahsildar, Daspalla on remand from the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh in appeal is concerned, that being a question of fact and there being no change in the earlier Caste Certificate issued in 2012, no amendment need be brought to plead such fact. 23. 22. So far as confirmation of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner reissued by the Tahsildar, Daspalla on remand from the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh in appeal is concerned, that being a question of fact and there being no change in the earlier Caste Certificate issued in 2012, no amendment need be brought to plead such fact. 23. Taking into consideration all these aspects and especially the conduct of the petitioner and the delay with which the amendment has been sought for, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, as the same has been rightly passed and I do not find any infirmity in the same. 24. Coming to the second writ petition, i.e. W.P. (C) No.9084 of 2014, it is found that petition dated 24.02.2014 was filed by the present petitioner to call for the original Yaddast No.588 dated 23.08.1997 of mouza Kujamendhi, P.S. Dasapalla, district – Nayagarh along with the original R.O.R. from the office of the Additional Sub-Collector in-charge of Settlement, Pastima Dwara, Puri and to call for the original record in Mutation Case No.850 of 2010 along with original R.O.R. and Intimation-A, Slip of Khata No.65/38 from the office of the Tahsildar, Dasapalla. The ground for calling these documents is that in the aforesaid documents the caste of the petitioner has been mentioned as ‘Telangu’, but in the R.O.R. prepared subsequently the caste of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as ‘Telungu’. 25. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the case of Janakiballav Patnaik vrs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. and others, 1988 (1) OLR – 427 and Rajkishore Prasad and others vrs. The State of Orissa and others, A.I.R. 1979 Orissa 96. Relying on the aforesaid decisions, Mr. Mishra learned senior counsel submits that a document may not be admissible in evidence, but if those documents can throw light on the matter in dispute / controversy, the petition for discovery should be allowed. 26. Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 submits that the Caste Certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner showing him as a person belonging to ‘Kachara’ caste. If the aforesaid records are called for, that will show that either the petitioner’s forefathers / ancestors were mentioned as ‘Telgu’ or ‘Telangu’ or ‘Telungu’ in the aforesaid documents. If the aforesaid records are called for, that will show that either the petitioner’s forefathers / ancestors were mentioned as ‘Telgu’ or ‘Telangu’ or ‘Telungu’ in the aforesaid documents. In none of the documents, as per the showing of the petitioner, his ancestors / forefathers have been mentioned as belonging to ‘Kachara’ caste. Neither ‘Telgu’ nor ‘Telangu’ nor ‘Telungu’ nor ‘Telegu’ nor ‘Telugu’ caste being a caste mentioned under the O.B.C. category, those documents throw no light on the caste of the petitioner, which is the controversy in issue. 27. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the impugned order, the submissions advanced by Mr. Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 commends to me. In all the documents sought to be called for, the petitioner’s forefathers / ancestors have been narrated as either ‘Telagu’ or ‘Telangu’ or ‘Telungu’. In none of the documents they have been referred to as ‘Kachara’ by caste. In view of such fact, even if those documents are called for, no useful purpose shall be served so far as the matter in controversy is concerned. 28. Taking into consideration the discussions by the learned Court below, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and, therefore, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the same. 29. In fine, both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.