JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction:- i. The impugned order dated 4.8.2023 (Annex.6) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jodhpur Metro in Election Petition No.252/2020 may kindly be quashed and set aside; ii. The application filed by the humble petitioner under Section 151 CPC (Annex.4), so also the application under Order 16 Rule 1(2) r/w Section 151 CPC (Annex.5) may kindly be allowed and the humble petitioner may kindly be permitted to produce the voters as witnesses; iii. The learned Tribunal may also be directed to summon the respondent No.4 Kanwar Lal as witness of the humble petitioner so as to prove the defence of the humble petitioner; iv. Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of humble petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gangani, District Jodhpur. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed an election petition before learned District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, against the petitioner. The learned Court below, after completion of the pleadings, framed certain issues, and posted the matter for evidence of the parties. 2.1. During the evidence of the petitioner, he has preferred an application under Section 151 CPC, stating therein that the voters whose names have been deleted from the ward no. 10 and shown in ward no.12, may be permitted to be examined. The petitioner filed another application under Order 16 Rule 1 (2) read with Section 151 CPC to summon the respondent No.4-Kanwar Lal S/o Ramniwas (Returning Officer) for examination in support of defence of the petitioner. 2.2. However, the learned Court below vide the common order dated 04.08.2023 impugned herein, rejected both the aforementioned applications preferred by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. 2.2. However, the learned Court below vide the common order dated 04.08.2023 impugned herein, rejected both the aforementioned applications preferred by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below passed the impugned order on the application under 151 CPC on the ground that the respondent no.4 himself was party in the election petition, and therefore, though he can be permitted to appear as witness independently for his own examination, but not in the capacity of the petitioner’s witness, in support of his defence in the election petition filed by the respondent no.1. As per learned counsel, the said finding of the learned Court below is not justified in law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below passed the impugned order, stating that the name of witness whose examination was sought by the petitioner, was not there on record, but despite the same, the petitioner wished to produce the witnesses. Learned counsel urged that the said finding is erroneous in the eye of law. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that in a situation, where the name of the witness was not included in list of witnesses, the Court concerned ought to allow the witness for examination, and therefore on that count also, the impugned order is not justified in law. 3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhyadhar Vs Manikrao & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573 ; he further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in case of Dinesh Singh Bhim Singh Vs Vinod Shobhraj Gajaria & Anr. (Writ Petition No. 11185 of 2022, decided on 25.01.2023). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner filed the aforementioned applications just to prolong the proceedings of the election petition pending before the learned Court below, and that, the election had already been completed and documents relating to the voters are already on record, and therefore, the learned Court below had rightly dismissed the applications in question vide the common order impugned herein. 4.1. 4.1. It was further submitted that it was not necessary for the concerned Court to call all the voters who participated in the election, because a large number of voters used to participate in the election. It was also submitted that the petitioner did not mention the name of the witness (respondent no.4 herein) in the list of witnesses, and despite the same, by way of filing the application, he has sought summoning of the said person to appear before the learned Court below as witness in support of the petitioner’s defence, which, in the present factual matrix, is not permissible in law. 4.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Ors. Vs K.D. Ganapathi & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.2015 of 2011, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 22.02.2011); he further relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in case of LRs. Of Smt. Devi W/o Morumal Vs LRs. Of Nemi Chand & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11088 of 2017, and other connected matter decided on 22.11.2021). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the respondent no.1 filed the aforementioned election petition against the petitioner. During the evidence of the petitioner, he has preferred an application under Section 151 CPC, stating therein that the voters whose names have been deleted from the ward no. 10 and shown in ward no.12, may be permitted to be examined. The petitioner filed another application under Order 16 Rule 1 (2) read with Section 151 CPC to summon the respondent No.4 as witness. Thereafter, the learned Court below vide the common order dated 04.08.2023 impugned herein rejected both the aforementioned applications. 7. This Court further observes that the petitioner seeking summoning of the person for examination whose name was shown in ward no.12 in series no. 246 to 384; the said person’s name was not included in list of the witnesses produced on record in the election petition. 7. This Court further observes that the petitioner seeking summoning of the person for examination whose name was shown in ward no.12 in series no. 246 to 384; the said person’s name was not included in list of the witnesses produced on record in the election petition. This Court also observes that the petitioner prayed for a huge number of persons to be summoned for examination, without any cogent reason or justification therefor, while claiming that their summoning and examination was necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the election petition. 8. This Court also observes that even though the petitioner was given several opportunities on 10.05.2023, 24.05.2023, 24.05.2023, 03.06.2023, 06.07.2023, 19.07.2023, 24.07.2023, 25.07.2023 and 26.07.2023 for evidence, but despite the same, the petitioner preferred application unnecessarily, so as to prolong the proceedings in the election petition before the learned Court below. 9. This Court thus observes that the prayer of the petitioner for summoning the respondent no.4 as witness for examination, has rightly been dismissed by the learned Court below because the respondent no.4 was already a party in the aforementioned election petition, and therefore, could not have been called as the petitioner’s witness. 10. This Court is thus of the opinion that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order, while taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as after duly appreciating the material placed on record before it. 11. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner also do not render any assistance to his case. 12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.