ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who is returning candidate, has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 11.1.2018 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur in Election Petition No. 01/2015 allowing the interim application filed by the respondent under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for the payment of cost of Rs. 500/- directing to issue summons to the concerned Grama Panchayath of Kuppalli to produce the ballot box pertaining to the election for recounting the votes taken by the petitioner and respondent including the postal votes. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an elected Member of Gram Panchayath of Kuppahalli Village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk. The respondent is the candidate who has lost the election to the petitioner by one vote. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed the election petition under Section 15(1) and Section 19 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 read with Rule 74(ii)(c) of Karnataka Panchayat Rules. The present petitioner, who is the 1st respondent before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Chickballapur filed objections resisting the election petition. 3. When the matter was posted for evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to summon ballot box pertaining to the Grama Panchayathi election of Kuppahalli Grama Panchayath for recounting the votes taken by the petitioner and respondents including the postal votes. The said application was resisted by the petitioner by filing objections contending that the Election Authority has rightly conducted the election and have not heard any single fault alleged by the petitioner/ respondent herein. Inspite of the same, the petitioner/respondent herein has filed the election petition just to harass the returning candidate/petitioner and hence the election petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned Civil Judge considering the application and objections, by the impugned order dated 11th January, 2018 allowed the application and directed to issue summons to the concerned Grama Panchayath of Kuppalli to produce the ballot box pertaining to the election held in their Grama Panchayathi for recounting the votes taken by the petitioner and respondents including the postal votes. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. Sri CR Gopalasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the very application filed under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC praying to summon the ballot box pertaining to the Grama Panchayathi is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. The said provision is only to summon the records from the Courts and not from the authorities. The learned Civil Judge cannot summon the ballot box pertaining to the Grama Panchayathi even at the stage where the evidence is yet to commence. He further contended that the validity of declaration of the petitioner as Returning candidate can be decided after complete adjudication of the matter between the parties. If the ballot box secured by the Court is ordered for recounting, the very purpose for which election petition filed will be defeated. He sought to quash the impugned order by allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, Sri M Veerabhadraiah, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge and contended that the learned Civil Judge has exercised the inherent power under Section 151 of CPC. Therefore, the technicality of the procedure followed by the learned Civil Judge cannot be a ground to quash the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge. He further contended that mere summoning of the ballot box pertaining to the Grama Panchayathi Election of Kuppahalli Grama Panchayath for recounting the votes including the postal votes will not prejudice the case of the petitioner. He further contended that though the learned Civil Judge passed the order summoning the ballot box, the same can be kept in abeyance till the appropriate stage to rely on the ballot box pertaining to the Grama Panchayathi election between the parties. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is a undisputed fact that the petitioner is the returning candidate in the election held for member of the Grama Panchayath, Kuppahalli. It is also not in dispute that the respondent filed election petition before the learned Civil Judge mainly on the ground that there was no proper counting the votes and that the election was not conducted properly. It is also not in dispute that the respondent filed election petition before the learned Civil Judge mainly on the ground that there was no proper counting the votes and that the election was not conducted properly. The said aspect has to be adjudicated between the parties by the learned Civil Judge after the trial. Admittedly, after completion of pleadings, when the matter was posted for evidence, the same has not yet commenced. Before commencing the evidence, the respondent filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC. Though the wrong clause is mentioned, it is not a ground to reject the application. The prayer sought for in the application has to be looked into. There is no dispute that under Section 151 of CPC, the petitioner can file an application to summon the ballot box pertaining to the Grama Panchayathi election of Kuppahalli Grama Panchayat for recounting the votes only after the conclusion of the evidence of the parties. 9. It is well settled that before summoning of the ballot box pertaining to the Grama Panchayat, the petitioner/respondent, who is the petitioner before the learned Civil Judge in election petition, has to adduce evidence by way of examination in chief and allow the respondent to cross- examine him. If the material evidence both oral and documentary evidence does not satisfy the Court and the petitioner was not able to elucidate anything from the respondent, then it is always open for the petitioner or Court to summon the ballot box pertaining to the Gram Panchayat concerned to dissolve the dispute between the parties. The application filed at the premature stage, learned Civil Judge ought to have rejected the application directing the parties to adduce their respective evidence. The same has not been done by the learned Civil Judge. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the trial in the election petition for recounting of the votes in the case of Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs. C.P. Joshi, 2011 AIR SCW 1061 at para-14 held as under: “14. During the trial of an election petition, it is not permissible for the court to permit a party to seek a roving enquiry. The party must plead the material fact and adduce evidence to substantiate the same so that the court may proceed to adjudicate upon that issue. During the trial of an election petition, it is not permissible for the court to permit a party to seek a roving enquiry. The party must plead the material fact and adduce evidence to substantiate the same so that the court may proceed to adjudicate upon that issue. Before the court permits the recounting, the following conditions must be satisfied: (i) The Court must be satisfied that a prima facie case is established. (ii) The material facts and full particulars have been pleaded stating the irregularities in counting of votes. (iii) A roving and fishing inquiry should not be directed by way of an order to recount the votes. (iv) An opportunity should be given to file objection. (v) Secrecy of the ballot requires to be guarded.” 11. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner must plead the material and adduce evidence to substantiate the same so as to the Court has to adjudicate upon the issue before the Court permitting for recounting the votes. The Court should have been satisfied that the petitioner made out a prima facie case and the material facts and full particulars have been pleaded stating irregularities in counting of votes. A roving and fishing inquiry should not be directed by way of an order to recount the votes and an opportunity should be given to file objection and secrecy of the ballot requires to be guarded. The said principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been followed in the present case. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.1.2018 made on the application in Election Petition No. 1/2015 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur is hereby quashed. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application for summoning the ballot box pertaining to Grama Panchayath election. After completion of evidence, it is always open for the Court to consider the application in accordance with law. 13. Since the election petition came to be filed on 2.7.2015, till today the trial has not yet commenced. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application for summoning the ballot box pertaining to Grama Panchayath election. After completion of evidence, it is always open for the Court to consider the application in accordance with law. 13. Since the election petition came to be filed on 2.7.2015, till today the trial has not yet commenced. In view of the provisions of Section 17(6) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election petition is presented to the concerned Court for trial. In view of the above, the Trial Court to comply with the provision of the Act and expedite the election petition. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the Court to dispose of the election petition expeditiously.