JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.11.2016 whereby his application for transfer of election petition was dismissed by the District Judge, Alwar. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent filed an election petition on 11.02.2015 before the learned District Judge, Alwar for declaring the election illegal as the petitioner is elected as a Sarpanch after submitting false and fabricated documents regarding his qualification and after making concealment of fact regarding status or number of children and prayed that the election may kindly be declared as per the provision of Section 19 (L) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It is contended that after report learned District Judge, Alwar send the matter to learned Additional Judicial Magistrate (Senior Division) No. 2 Alwar on 18.02.2015. After service on the petitioner, his counsel submitted power on 16.04.2015 but due to transfer of Presiding Officer, the matter was again transferred to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Behror, District Alwar by the learned District Judge, Alwar vide order dated 30.06.2015 and next dated i.e. 05.08.2015 was fixed for appearance. On 05.08.2015, reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner and matter was fixed for framing issues. On next date, petitioner submitted an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and the respondent/applicant sought time for reply. However, on next dates i.e. 04.12.2015, 09.12.2015, 21.12.2015, 21.01.2016 and 25.01.2016, case was adjourned as the learned Presiding Officer could not heard the matter due to her presence at the Camp Court, Neemrana, District Alwar. After submitting reply to application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on 30.01.2016 by respondent/applicant, the matter was fixed for argument. On 26.02.2016 the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Theissues were framed by the learned court on 29.02.2016 and the matter was kept pending for evidence of respondent/applicant on 08.03.2016, 14.03.2016, 19.03.2016. 3. It is contended that the petitioner submitted application on 05.04.2016 under Order 11, Rule 12 & 14 and Section 151 CPC for calling for the record of school regarding enquiry of education/qualification of petitioner and respondent/applicant sought time for reply. On 11.04.2016 and 29.04.2016, the matter could not be heard due to non-availability of learned Presiding Officer. 3. It is contended that the petitioner submitted application on 05.04.2016 under Order 11, Rule 12 & 14 and Section 151 CPC for calling for the record of school regarding enquiry of education/qualification of petitioner and respondent/applicant sought time for reply. On 11.04.2016 and 29.04.2016, the matter could not be heard due to non-availability of learned Presiding Officer. However, on 04.05.2016, the learned court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner with the warning to co-operate in expedite trial of the case and directed that the petitioner is free to submit any documents after obtaining the same under RTI Act and there is no necessity to call for the school record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never sought adjournment in the matter and application filed by the petitioner is important because the school record is necessary to be called for as the issue regarding false and fabricated educational documents can be adjudicate properly after considering the original record. There is no wilful fault of the petitioner to make any delay in trial and the application was dismissed without proper appreciation of evidence, law and factual position. It is contended that on 12.05.2016, last opportunity to lay evidence was given to respondent/applicant and on same day after examine witnesses Rakesh Kumar and Chandiya Ram, the date 18.05.2016, was fixed for cross examination. On next date the petitioner sought a short adjournment for cross examination whereupon cost of Rs. 400/- was imposed on the petitioner, however, it was his first adjournment. 5. It is contended that an application under Order 8, Rule 1 CPC was submitted by the petitioner on 23.05.2016 and the reply was submitted on 24.05.2016. The learned court below allowed the application with cost of Rs. 500/- vide order dated 25.05.2016 by stating that the documents mentioned in application are important for lawful adjudication of the matter, however, imposed cost on the petitioner. It shows that both the time when cost was imposed on the petitioner, there is no wilful fault of the petitioner and the petitioner never wants to linger on the proceedings. 6. It is contended that on several occasions i.e. 27.05.2016, 04.06.2016, 04.07.2016, 11.07.2016, 19.07.2016 & 22.07.2016 were given to the respondent/applicant for his evidence and on 03.08.2016 affidavit of witnesses were produced by the petitioner but the counsel for respondent/applicant sought time for cross examination. 6. It is contended that on several occasions i.e. 27.05.2016, 04.06.2016, 04.07.2016, 11.07.2016, 19.07.2016 & 22.07.2016 were given to the respondent/applicant for his evidence and on 03.08.2016 affidavit of witnesses were produced by the petitioner but the counsel for respondent/applicant sought time for cross examination. Another application under Order 8, Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC was submitted by the petitioner on 11.08.2016 to take some relevant documents on record. The respondent/applicant did not submit any reply. The application was decided same day whereby the learned court below allowed the application while imposing the cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 7. It is contended that the application filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 11.08.2016 by stating that the documents mentioned in application are important and relevant to lawful adjudication of the matter while imposing cost on the petitioner once again. The petitioner submitted an application on 21.10.2016 before learned District Judge, Alwar regarding transfer of the matter to another court as the respondent/applicant is openly making declarations that he politically influenced the learned Presiding Officer of the court below through MLA and the case is definitely decided in favour of respondent/applicant. It is also came into acknowledge of the petitioner that the respondent/applicant usually met the Presiding Officer, therefore, petitioner was not expecting lawful and proper adjudication of the case. 8. It is contended that the respondent/applicant did not appear despite service and on 23.11.2016, however, by ex-parte order dated 25.11.2016, the learned District Judge, Alwar after hearing the petitioner, dismissed the application. It is therefore prayed to set aside the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by learned District Judge, Alwar and the Election Petition No.07/2015 (19/2015) pending before the court of leaned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Behror, District Alwar be transferred to another court in the interest of justice. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order dated 25.11.2016, this Court finds that the learned District Judge after considering the above facts, has held that election petition is an important petition. It has been filed on 18.2.2015 and is pending for last two years. Petitioner has been granted sufficient time and even his application filed under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 45 of the Evidence Act was also rejected on cost of Rs.500. It has been filed on 18.2.2015 and is pending for last two years. Petitioner has been granted sufficient time and even his application filed under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 45 of the Evidence Act was also rejected on cost of Rs.500. The District Judge in the impugned order has also on perusal of the order sheets produced, found that nothing is shown from these order sheets that the Court is working with the spirit of baisness and expediting the proceedings in an election petition, which is pending for last two years, is justified. Thus the application of the petitioner, was rightly dismissed. No case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed.