Kerala High Court
Peedikakandy Sarada vs K.Subhashini
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/14TH KARTHIKA, 1936
OP(C).No. 2549 of 2014 (O)
---------------------------
I.A. NO. 993/2014 & I.A NO. 994/2014 IN E.O.P NO. 35/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT,
NADAPURAM
-----------------
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PETITIONER :
----------------------------------------------------------
PEEDIKAKANDY SARADA,
W/O. PEEDIKAKANDY GOPALAN NAIR,
AGED 64, PEEDIKAKANDY HOUSE
P.O.KODANCHERRY, VIA PURAMERI
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 580.
BY ADV. SRI.SRINATH GIRISH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT :
------------------------------------------------------------------
K.SUBHASHINI
W/O. RAVEENDRAN
(AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
PUTHAN KOYILOTH HOUSE
VELLORE, P.O.KODANCHERRY, VIA PURAMERI
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 580.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
OP(C).No. 2549 of 2014 (O)
-------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------
EXT. P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION DATED 26.11.10 IN
OP (ELECTION) 35/10 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,
NADAPURAM.
EXT. P2- TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DT. 17.1.11 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT IN OP (ELECTION) 35/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE
MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.
EXT. P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA 993/14 IN
OP (ELECTION) 35/10 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.
EXT. P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA 994/14 IN
OP (ELECTION) 35/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.
EXT. P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL MARKED AS EXT. X3 IN E.O.P
NO. 35/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.
EXT. P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL MARAKED AS EXT. X8 IN E.O.P
NO. 35/10 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.
EXT. P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL MARKED AS EXT. X4 IN EOP 35/10
ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.
EXT. P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL MARKED AS EXT. X9 IN EOP 35/10
ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.
EXT. P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL MARKED AS EXT.X6 IN EOP
NO. 35/10 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.
EXT. P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL MARKED AS EXT. X12 (a) IN
EOP 35/10 ON THE FILE OFTHE MUSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.
EXT. P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL MARKED AS EXT. X2 IN EOP 35/10
ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.
EXT. P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL MARKED AS EXT. X11 IN EOP
NO. 35/10 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.
EXT. P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DT. 26.9.14 IN IA 993/14 AND
IA 994/14 IN EOP 35/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,
NADAPURAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.(C) No. 2549 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 05th day of November, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Under challenge is Ext.P13 order whereby the court below has declined the prayer for sending the disputed documents for expert's opinion.
2. The matter relates to an election petition in which the allegation was of double voting.
3. The petitioner points out that the person, whose signature is sought to be sent for expert's opinion, has admitted his signature on the both ballot papers and the court below by curious method of reasoning says that one of the signatures admitted by the person concerned was by mistake and that has prompted the petitioner to move the court below for sending the ballot papers concerned for expert's opinion.
4. The court below has also noticed that only after establishing the prima facie case, the question of sending O.P.(C) No. 2549 of 2014 -2- the disputed document for expert's opinion arises for consideration. That shows that the court below has not shut out the prayer of the petitioner for ever. Only if the court below comes to the conclusion that there are circumstances which would show that there is double voting, then alone, the question of examining ballot papers will arise.
5. The trial started on 07.07.2013 and on 18.02.2014 the petitioner's evidence was closed. The respondents evidence closed on 18.02.2014. The order makes mention of various aspects that transpired during the pendency of the petition, including the submission before the court below that the petitioner sought transfer of files to another appropriate court. The question of considering the expert opinion does not arise for consideration for the simple reason that even as admitted by the petitioner, the person, whose signature is sought to be sent for expert's opinion, has admitted his signature on both the ballot papers. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the court below O.P.(C) No. 2549 of 2014 -3- came to the conclusion that the admission of signatures on one of the ballot papers is by a mistake or not is a different question altogether. Expert's opinion cannot be of any help in that regard. If the court forms of the opinion that the signatures are different, then the expert's opinion may not be of any relevance at all. Ultimately, it is not the signature on the ballot papers all that matters, but the other circumstances and evidence adduced in the case from which a prima facie conclusion can be drawn regarding double voting.
6. The opening of the ballot papers and verification of the ballot papers arises only after prima facie case is made out regarding double voting. Opening of the ballot papers is a last step in the process of coming to the conclusion that there has been double voting.
7. As already noticed, the court below has not altogether rejected the petitioners prayer for sending the documents for expert's opinion. All that the court below has O.P.(C) No. 2549 of 2014 -4- observed that only after the prima facie evidence, which if accepted by the court below is sufficient to come to the conclusion that double voting is or is not, the question of sending the documents for expert's opinion arises.
8. No objections can be taken to the finding of the court below that at present, there is no need to send the documents for expert's opinion. Going by the materials now available, especially, order of the court below, it would appear that the court below has not shut out the option of sending the ballot papers for experts opinion altogether.
Under these circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the court below. This petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds //True Copy// P.A. To Judge