ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 12.12.2015 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur District (‘the Judge’), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Rules 85, 86 and 87 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (‘the Rules’) and Sections 63, 64 and 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Act’) and Section 151 CPC has been rejected. The respondent filed an election petition under Rule 80 of the Rules calling in question the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ramdawas Kala and seeking a declaration in her favour. The petitioner filed reply to the election petition and contested the same. The Judge framed two issues; where after the respondent filed an affidavit as her examination in chief; in the affidavit, besides other things, the respondent marked seven exhibits; Exhibit-1, which was collectively marked, contained nomination form along with the annexures filed with it; Exhibit-2 pertained to Family Ration Card; Exhibit-3 pertained to the documents relating to petitioner’s daughter’s admission to School record; Exhibit-4 pertained to the inquiry report by S.D.O.; Exhibit-5 pertained to the result of election; Exhibit-6 pertained to the tender receipt and Exhibit-7 pertained to postal receipts of sending election petition to the Returning Officer. On filing of the affidavit in evidence by the respondent, the present application was filed by the petitioner, inter alia, indicating that provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC are not applicable to the proceedings, instead Rule 85 of the Rules provides for making a memorandum of the evidence and, therefore, the affidavit filed cannot be taken on record and the same be placed in Part-D; it was also contended that the exhibits marked in the affidavit pertained to documents, which are not admissible in evidence and such inadmissible documents cannot be marked as exhibit. Reference was made to the provisions of Sections 61, 62, 63 and 65 of the Act and it was further contended that the certified copies, which have been produced by the respondent, their original documents are in existence and in view thereof, the certified copies and photo copies are not admissible in evidence; it was prayed that the affidavit be removed from the record and be directed to be placed in Part-D and the respondent be prevented from marking exhibit on the documents, which are inadmissible in evidence. A reply to the application was filed by the respondent; it was claimed that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the election petition and application has been filed for delaying the proceedings; it was further claimed that all the documents marked as exhibit were public documents; certified copies have been issued by the government departments and documents issued by the Election Commission, which are admissible in evidence; ultimately, it was prayed that the application be dismissed with heavy costs. After hearing the parties, the Judge came to the conclusion that the procedure for trying the election petitions is flexible so as to expedite its disposal which, inter alia, provides for recording memorandum of evidence and once the affidavits have been filed, to discard the same and record memorandum would violate the essence of expeditious disposal; the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable and, therefore, it cannot be said that the procedure prohibited has been adopted; regarding the marking of exhibits, the Judge came to the conclusion that the documents were public documents; granted permission to lead secondary evidence and, consequently, rejected the application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Rule 85 of the Rules are clear, which require that a Judge shall only make a memorandum of evidence and, therefore, filing of the affidavits under the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC is ex facie contrary to the provision and, therefore, the order passed by the Judge cannot be sustained; it was further submitted that the documents produced by the respondent have been marked as exhibits in the affidavit, which is not permissible as all the documents are inadmissible as the same are merely certified copies and the secondary evidence of certified copies cannot be led/permitted without following the due procedure and, therefore, the order passed by the Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside; it was further submitted that there was no application/prayer made by the respondent to produce secondary evidence, however, the Judge has granted permission without any application and, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned; it was submitted that the provisions of Proviso (b) of Rule 85 of the Rules is not mandatory and it is at the discretion of the Judge to either record a memorandum of evidence or direct the parties to file affidavits by following procedure under Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC and the same cannot be questioned by the petitioner; it was further submitted that all the documents produced by the petitioner are certified copies of public documents issued by the Returning Officer/Election Commission and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be inadmissible in evidence; it was submitted that there was no requirement for the respondent to file application for permission to lead secondary evidence, the Judge by the impugned order has simply noticed the legal implication and, consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The relevant provisions of Rule 85 of the Rules read as under:- “Rule 85. Hearing of petition. -The procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) in regard to suits, shall, in so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in the hearing of the petition: (a) .... ..... ..... .. .. (b) the Judge shall not be required to record evidence in full but shall only make a memorandum thereof sufficient in his opinion for the purpose of deciding the petition:” A bare look at the above provision would reveal that the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to suits, in so far as it can be made applicable, has been directed to be followed in the hearing of the election petition; in so far as the recording of evidence is concerned, it has been provided that it shall not be required of the Judge to record evidence in full but he shall only make a memorandum thereof sufficient in his opinion for the purpose of deciding the petition. An analysis of the above provision reveals that while provisions of Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable for the purpose of procedure while hearing the election petition, Proviso (b) to Rule 85 of the Rules enables a Judge to record only a memorandum of evidence and provides that 'the Judge shall not be required to record evidence in full' and further leaves it to his discretion to make a memorandum of the evidence, which is 'sufficient in his opinion for the purpose of deciding the petition'; the use of expression shall not be required to record evidence and further giving discretion regarding sufficiency of the memorandum, cannot be read as a prohibition against recording of evidence at length and it cannot be said that in case instead of recording the deposition of witnesses by way of memorandum of the evidence, if evidence of witness at length is recorded, the said procedure would be against the provisions of Rule 85 of the Rules and the same would stand vitiated. The language of the provision, providing for recording of memorandum only and providing for discretion regarding the sufficiency, makes the provision as enabling and not prohibitory and, therefore, in so far as the objection of the petitioner regarding recording of evidence by way of provisions under Order XVIII, Rule 4 CPC is concerned has no substance. So far as the objection regarding the admissibility of the documents marked as exhibit in the affidavit filed by the respondent is concerned, the Judge has held the same as public documents. Chapter-V of the Act deals with documentary evidence. Section 61 provides that the contents of the documents may be proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence. The primary evidence is stated to be the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court under Section 62 of the Act. Secondary evidence is defined under Section 63 of the Act. As per Section 64 of the Act, normally, the documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases mentioned under the provisions of the Act. Section 65 provides for the circumstances under which secondary evidence may be given. Public documents are defined under Section 74 of the Act. Section 75 of the Act provides that all documents other than mentioned in Sec. 74 are private. Section 65 provides for the circumstances under which secondary evidence may be given. Public documents are defined under Section 74 of the Act. Section 75 of the Act provides that all documents other than mentioned in Sec. 74 are private. Section 77 provides that certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. The proof of different categories of public documents is provided under Section 78 of the Act. Section 79 speaks of the presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies. The certified copies from electoral roll and nomination register have been held to be public documents requiring no proof in the case of Smt. Aina Devi v. Bachan Singh & Anr. : AIR 1980 Allahabad 174 and similarly in Neladhar Mahapatra & Anr. v. Seva Dibya & Ors. : AIR 1991 Ori. 166 , the electoral roll was held to be a public document requiring no proof. The plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the secondary evidence cannot be permitted without following the procedure in presence of original documents is essentially baseless as provisions of Section 65 of the Act including its Clause (e) provides that secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a documents when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 and a certified copy of the document has been made admissible; the provisions of the Act do not require anything more as is required in the case of Clause (a) of Section 65 of the Act, whereby, the procedure under Section 66 has to be adopted. It may further be noticed that the documents, which are public documents under Section 74 of the Act, can be produced in proof of the contents of the public document or part of public documents on which it purports to be a copy; it can be produced as secondary evidence of the public document under Section 65(e) read with Section 77 of the Act without anything more, no foundation need be laid for production of certified copy as secondary evidence under Section 65(e) of the Act. However, it is important to notice that the same will only prove the contents of the original document and it will not be a proof of execution of the original document. However, it is important to notice that the same will only prove the contents of the original document and it will not be a proof of execution of the original document. Therefore, the objections raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding marking of public documents as exhibits have no basis. So far as the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the Judge passing the order without there being any application is concerned, as noticed hereinbefore, the Judge has simply given effect to the provisions of Section 74 read with Section 65(e) of the Act and, therefore, no objection in this regard can be entertained. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is, therefore, dismissed.