JUDGMENT B. Rath, J. - Heard Sri Parhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sahoo learned Additional Standing Counsel for O.Ps. 1 to 4 and Sri 3. Pasayat, learned Counsel for O.P.5. 2. This writ petition involves a challenge to the order dated 19.6.2018 passed in Election Petition No.1/2017 under Annexure-1. 3. Taking to the pleading involving the application under consideration he observation in the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Parhi submitted that there is no proper consideration of the issue involved. Whereas, learned Counsel for the contesting opposite parties, Sri Pasayat, taking this Court to the observation and the findings involving he impugned order submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order requiring no scope for interfering in the impugned order. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the application at the instance of the petitioner at page-47, this Court finds, le contentions raised therein are all based on the clear pleading involving lection dispute in paragraph-5. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that unless the documents more particularly the used ballot papers are called for and put for evidence, there may not be effective adjudication of le election dispute. Further for the scope of cross-examination to the elected candidate involving such document, there is also no prejudice otherwise to the elected candidate appearing herein as O.P:.5. In such view of the matter, this Court while interfering in the impugned order so far it relates to refusal of calling for original used ballot papers, and while maintaining the direction already in the impugned order so far it relates to production of Envelope containing, from No. 13 signed by the P.O. duly sealed and signed by the P.O. and the agents of the parties of Ward No.2, while allowing the application of the petitioner under Order XVI Rules 6 & 7 of C.P.C. in full, this Court also directs that the trial court shall do well in calling for the used ballot papers, as indicated in the application under consideration for evidence purpose. Documents, as directed by this Court, shall be procured within one and half months and further evidence with the scope of crossexamination, if any, be completed within a further period one month. The election disputed will also be disposed of within a period of three and half months hence. 5. Documents, as directed by this Court, shall be procured within one and half months and further evidence with the scope of crossexamination, if any, be completed within a further period one month. The election disputed will also be disposed of within a period of three and half months hence. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of with interference in the impugned order but to the above extent indicated herein above.