ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders passed by the Election Tribunal ('the Tribunal') dated 17.12.2015, whereby, the application filed by respondent No.2 under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC has been accepted and application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC has been rejected and order dated 19.1.2017, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 17.12.2015 has also been rejected. 2. The respondent No.2 filed election petition under the provisions of Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act'), alleging that the petitioner was not qualified to be elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Khariya Khangar, Panchayat Samiti Pipar City, District Jodhpur. The plea raised in the election petition pertaining to qualification was that the petitioner was not having minimum educational qualification as required by the provisions of the Act. 3. During the pendency of the election petition, respondent election petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC seeking to produce certain documents, which pertained to the educational qualification of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner after filing reply to the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, filed application under Section 151 CPC, inter alia, with the prayer that one of the documents filed along with the application, has been procured by the respondent surreptitiously from the record of criminal case and, therefore, appropriate proceedings be initiated against the respondent-election petitioner. 5. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 17.12.2015, came to the conclusion that the documents were procured by the respondent under The Right to Information Act, 2005; for the just disposal of the case, the documents were required to be taken on record; allowed the application and took the documents on record. 6. So far as the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC was concerned, it was observed by the Tribunal that as to how and from where the documents were procured by the petitioner, the same would be a subject-matter of evidence and prior to that no action can be taken and, consequently, dismissed the application. 7. 6. So far as the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC was concerned, it was observed by the Tribunal that as to how and from where the documents were procured by the petitioner, the same would be a subject-matter of evidence and prior to that no action can be taken and, consequently, dismissed the application. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3162/2016, which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order impugned, in case review petition filed by the petitioner, which was said to be pending before the Tribunal was rejected. Where after, the review petition filed by the petitioner was decided by order dated 19.1.2017, wherein the plea raised was that the petitioner was not accorded opportunity of hearing, insofar as the application filed under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC was concerned and it was held by the Tribunal that from the record, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not accorded sufficient opportunity of hearing and consequently, dismissed the review petition. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal committed error; first by deciding the application filed by the respondent without hearing the petitioner; thereafter rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the said order. 9. With reference to the order sheets from before 17.12.2015, it was submitted that the matter was fixed for orders on application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC and for arguments on the application filed by the respondent under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, however, without hearing the petitioner, both the applications were decided by order dated 17.12.2015. 10. It was further submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in accepting the application filed by respondent under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, inasmuch as, the documents were already in possession of the respondent, some of them were not certified copies and were wholly irrelevant, insofar as, the subject-matter of the election petition was concerned and, therefore, the application was liable to the rejected. 11. Reliance was placed in case of Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. Jai Singh and Anr.: 2016(1) WLN 208 (Raj.). 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 13. 11. Reliance was placed in case of Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. Jai Singh and Anr.: 2016(1) WLN 208 (Raj.). 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 13. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the application was filed under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, inter alia, seeking to place on record certain documents, said to have been obtained by the respondent after filing of the petition. 14. The application was opposed by the petitioner on several grounds as noticed hereinbefore and by way of application filed under Section 151 CPC challenge was also laid to one of the documents annexed with the application on the ground of its being surreptitiously procured, against The Official Secrets Act, 1923. 15. From the order sheets, which were brought to the notice of this Court, it is apparent that the matter remained pending on certain dates after hearing submissions on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC and ultimately the matter was fixed on 17.12.2015 for order on the application under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner as well as arguments on the application filed by the respondent under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC and as noticed hereinbefore, both the applications were decided on 17.12.2015 itself. 16. It appears that by the time the review petition came to be heard by the Tribunal, the presiding officer had changed and, therefore, based on the material, which was available before it, the presiding officer of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the plea that the petitioner was not heard on the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. 17. Without going into the aspect as to whether the petitioner was heard on the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC or not, which aspect being factual cannot be determined based on the order sheets, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the application filed by the respondent under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC and the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal. 18. 18. A bare perusal of the dates of the documents produced by the respondent clearly indicates that the same were in fact obtained/received after filing of the election petition and the same cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant to the controversy in dispute i.e. the educational qualification of the petitioner. The delay in production is thus evident and explained. So far as the admissibility of the documents and their evidentiary value is concerned, the same would be the subject matter during the trial of the election petition and at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, unless the documents are wholly irrelevant, the said aspect cannot be examined. 19. So far as the reasons indicated by the Tribunal while accepting the application is concerned, though the same are not exhaustive, however, the same takes care of the requirement of law as contained in Order 7, Rule 14 CPC besides the fact that as noticed hereinbefore the application is worth acceptance and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 20. So far as the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar and Ors. (supra) is concerned, the same was decided in peculiar facts of the said case and the same cannot be made basis for questioning the validity of the order impugned. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.