Rekha Radhakrishnan v. Usha Ramakrishnan and others

1 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944 ``` ## **`OP(C) NO. 1727 OF 2022`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA 6/2022 IN OPELE 1/2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALI ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` REKHA RADHAKRISHNAN,AGED 47 YEARS W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, MANGALATHU PUTHENVEEDU, DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT - PIN - 685561 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY MARTINDAS V.JAMES (VATTAKKUZHIYIL) AMJATH A.R ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 USHA RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 48 YEARS W/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT KOUSTHABAM HOUSE, DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561`** - **`2 VIJI RADHAKRISHNAN,AGED 42 YEARS W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, PALLANADU, DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561, PIN - 685561`** - **`3 ANU RATHEESH KUMAR,AGED 32 YEARS W/O.RATHEESH, DEVI VILASAM, DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561,`** - **`4 SABEENA ABDUL KHADER,AGED 33 YEARS W/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOCHUKUDIYIL, DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561,`** - **`5 ANEES SHANTI,AGED 52 YEARS W/O.SHANTI,CHELAPPURAM, DEVIYAR COLONY, VALARA.P.O., ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561,`** ``` BY ADV BABU PAUL- R1 ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE ``` ``` SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 ## **C.S DIAS,J.** **--------------------------OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 ----------------------------Dated this the 6[th ] day of January, 2023.** ## **JUDGMENT** Confronted with Ext P14 order passed in IA No.6/2022 in OP(Election) No.1/2021 by the Court of the Munsiff, Adimaly, the first respondent in the election petition has filed the original petition. The respondents are the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 before the court below. 2. The antecedent facts leading to Ext P14 order, in a nutshell, are: 2.1. The first respondent has filed the election petition challenging the election of the petitioner to ward No.19 of Adimaly Grama Panchayat, held on 13.1.2021. The petitioner was the returned candidate 3 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 and the first respondent had secured the next highest number of votes. 2.2. The first respondent has alleged that four voters had cast their votes in ward No.19 and other constituencies in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (in short, ‘Act’). 2.3. Later, by way of amendment of the election petition, the first respondent has alleged that two more voters have indulged in double voting. However, no document has been produced to substantiate the allegation in the election petition. 2.4. The petitioner has objected to the election petition through Ext P2 written objection and Ext P3 additional objection filed to the amended original petition. 4 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 2.5. Although the court below had framed a preliminary issue to decide whether there was noncompliance with Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 89 of the Act, the court below held that the said issue is to be decided after trial. The order was confirmed by this Court by Ext P4 judgment in OP(C)No.261/2022. 2.6 At the instance of the first respondent, this Court by judgment in O.P.(C)No.2169/2021 has directed the court below to dispose of the election petition within two months. 2.7. The first respondent had filed her proof affidavit and was examined as PW1. Ext P6 is her deposition. Thereafter, the first respondent filed I.A.No.2/2022, to issue summons to witness No.7 for producing the marked voters’ list and the signed registered voters’ list of ward No.19. By Ext P7 order, 5 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 the court below allowed the application. Nonetheless, witness No.7 stated that the documents were not in his custody, but with the Tahsildar, Devikulam. Immediately, the court below ordered the Tahsildar, Devikulam, to produce the documents. 2.8. The petitioner challenged Ext P7 order before this Court in O.P (C)No.1069/2022, which was dismissed by Ext P8 judgment. 2.9. Then, the first respondent filed IA No.4/2022 (Ext P9) to direct the District Collector, Idukki, to produce certain documents. The petitioner objected to the said application. The application was disposed of by the court below. 2.10. The petitioner again filed IA No.5/2022 to decide the question of maintainability as a preliminary 6 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 issue. The court below dismissed the application by Ext P10 order. 2.11. Thereafter, the first respondent filed IA No.6/2022 (Ext P11), to issue summons to witness Nos.1 to 5 - the custodians of the voters’ list of the respective constituencies – for the production of the attested copies of the voters’ list. The petitioner objected to the said application by filing Ext P12 written objection and Ext P13 additional objection. The court below, by the impugned Ext P14 order, allowed Ext P11 application. 2.12. Ext P14 is patently wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Babu Paul, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent. 7 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 4. Despite notice being ordered to the respondents 2 to 5, the petitioner has not taken steps to effect service of notice on the said respondents. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, as the respondents 2 to 5 are not appearing before the court below, notice may be dispensed to them at the risk of the petitioner. Accordingly, notice to the respondents 2 to 5 were dispensed with and the original petition was taken up for final consideration. 5. The short point is, is there is any illegality in Ext P14 order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is wellsettled in a host of judicial pronouncements. The earliest of the decisions on the point is the decision in 8 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 ## **Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and** **another** [AIR 1954 SC 215], wherein a five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “12. This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries C.J., in _Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd._ v. _Sukumar Mukherjee_ [AIR 1951 Cal 193], to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. xxx xxx xxx”. ## 7. In **Shalini Shyam Shetty & anr. V. Rajendra** **Shankar Patil** [(2010) 8 SCC 329], the principles in Waryam Singh have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows: “49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: ( _a_ ) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by the High Court under these two articles is also different. ( _b_ ) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above. 9 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 **(** _**c**_ **) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.** ( _d_ ) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of their power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. **In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in** _**Waryam Singh**_ **[AIR 1954 SC 215] and the principles in** _**Waryam Singh**_ **[AIR 1954 SC 215] have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.** ( _e_ ) According to the ratio in _Waryam Singh_ [AIR 1954 SC 215] , followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it, “within the bounds of their authority”. ( _f_ ) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. **(** _**g**_ **) Apart from the situations pointed in (** _**e**_ **) and (** _**f**_ **), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.** **(** _**h**_ **) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.** ( _i_ ) The High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in _L. Chandra Kumar_ v. _Union of India_ [(1997) 3 SCC 10 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577] and therefore abridgment by a constitutional amendment is also very doubtful. ( _j_ ) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. **(** _**k**_ **) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.** ( _l_ ) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory. ( _m_ ) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. **The power of interference under this article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.** **(** _**n**_ **) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance.** Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above. ( _o_ ) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. 11 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 ## 8. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **M/S Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel** [(2022) 4 SCC 181] has held as follows: “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order [ _Prakash Chand Goel_ v. _Garment Craft_ , 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943] is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. **The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.** [ _Celina Coelho Pereira_ v. _Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar_ , (2010) 1 SCC 217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69] The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. **The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.** 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in _Estralla Rubber_ v. _Dass Estate (P) Ltd._ [ _Estralla Rubber_ v. _Dass Estate (P) Ltd._ , (2001) 8 SCC 97] has observed : (SCC pp. 101-102, para 6) “ _6_ . The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. **The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts** 12 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 **and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.”** 9. The specific case of the first respondent in Ext P1 election petition is that six persons have indulged in double voting; therefore, the election of the petitioner from ward No.19 is void, illegal and is liable to be set aside. 13 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 10. The petitioner has refuted the allegations in the election petition through Exts P2 and P3 written objections. 11. It is undisputed that the first respondent had filed the witness list on 04.02.2022, at the pre-trial stage, citing 10 witnesses. 12. The parties went to trial. 13. The first respondent filed Ext P5 chief affidavit on 17.03.202 and she was cross-examined on 19.03.2022 as evidenced by Ext P6 deposition. 14. After the cross-examination of the first respondent, she filed I.A No.2/2022, to issue summons to witness No.7, to produce the marked voters’ list and signed the register of voters of the election to ward No.19 and ward No.21 of the Adimaly Grama Panchayat. By Ext P7 order, the court below allowed 14 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 the application, and the said order was confirmed by this Court by Ext P8 judgment. 15. Notwithstanding the fact that the court below had rejected the petitioner’s request to decide the election petition on a preliminary issue by Ext P3 order, and Ext P3 order being confirmed by Ext P4 judgment, the petitioner again filed IA No.5/2022 for an identical relief. By Ext P10 order, the court below dismissed the said application. 16. After the passing of Ext P10 order, the first respondent filed IA No.6/2022, to issue summons to witnesses Nos.1 to 5, the custodians of the voters’ list of the persons who allegedly indulged in double voting to produce the voters’ list. The petitioner objected to the said application through Exts P12 and P13 objections, inter alia, contending that the 15 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 to be summoned are documents sought public documents, that the first respondent has other modes to prove the said documents, that it is without exhausting the known remedies the petitioner has filed the application, that the first respondent is in possession of voters list of all the constituencies, that it was up to the petitioner to have produced the documents at the pretrial stage and that the first respondent is attempting to fish out evidence through the process of this Court. 17. The court below, after adverting to the rival contentions, by the impugned Ext P14 order held as follows: “3. Heard both sides. The OP(Election) is filed to declare the election of 1[st] respondent as void upon allegation of double voting by 6 persons. The evidence in the case has started. Petitioner was examined as PW1. During examination, she stated that she is in possession of voters list of all the constituencies referred to in the petition except one. No voters list is produced with the petition to show that the persons alleged are voters of two constituencies each. Without establishing a prima facie case, the marked voters list cannot be summoned. In order to establish a prima facie case, she need to prove that the 16 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 alleged voters are included in the voters list of two constituencies. For that voters list of the constituencies needs to be perused by the court. As per Rule 120 of Civil Rules of Practice, this court can issue summons for the production of public records in the custody of a public officer if sufficient reason exists. Here, in order to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction before examining marked voters list, this court requires the voters list to be examined first. The original petition is challenging the election of first respondent and the nature of case requires a speedy disposal for an effective remedy. The Honourable High Court of Kerala has also fixed a time limit for disposal of the case. The mere purpose of summoning the voters list is to arrive at prima facie satisfaction as discussed above before going further in evidence. Hence this Court is inclined to direct the production of the voters list in the custody of witness 1 to 5 in original along with attested copies. Since petition is for production of documents, the witness 1 to 5 need not appear in person. Allowed and ordered accordingly. 18. Admittedly, the first respondent had filed the witness list before the commencement of trial, wherein the first respondent has evidently sought to issue summons to ten witnesses for the purpose of proving her case. 19. Ext P11 application was filed by the first respondent to issue summons to witnesses Nos. 1 to 5 for the following purpose: 17 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 |Sl<br>No.|Name<br>and<br>address|summons/<br>produce|Oral,<br>documentary|Matters to be proved|Document to<br>be proved| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1.|The Returning<br>Officer, Ward<br>No.019 Deviyar<br>Ward to the<br>G06001<br>Adimaly Grama<br>Panchayat<br>Council in<br>Idukki District|summons|both|To prove that<br>1.Voter No.117 Jose,<br>son of Joseph, House<br>No.429,<br>Cheruvallil<br>House with identity<br>card<br>No.<br>SECIDB4E9173F<br>2. Voter No. 184<br>Sunil Kumar,<br>son of Nanukuttan<br>Nair, House No.<br>458, Ananda<br>Bhavan,<br>with identity card<br>No.<br>KL/14/083/423405<br>3. Sl. No. 185<br>Sindhumol, wife of<br>Sunil Kumar,<br>Ananda Bhavan,<br>ID card No.<br>JJQ1766732<br>4. Sl. No. 709<br>Mini Eapen, wife of<br>Eapen, House No.637,<br>Kizhakkepallikka-|marked<br>voters list and<br>signed<br>register of the<br>voters| 18 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 |||||parambil<br>Voter ID No.<br>SECID4B78D60D<br>5. Sri. Pradeep C.K<br>Changanamparambil<br>House, House<br>No.81, Deviyar,is<br>shown as 25 Part 2,<br>S.No.83 in Ward<br>No.19<br>6. Smt.Sheeba<br>Pradeep, wife of<br>Pradeep, House<br>No. 81.<br>Chenganaparambil<br>House of Deviyar<br>Ward, is shown as<br>Part 2, SI No. 84 in<br>Ward No. 19<br>casted their votes<br>in Ward No. 19 of<br>Adimaly Grama<br>Panchayath|| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |2.|The Returning<br>Officer,<br>Anappara<br>Constituency in<br>Rajakkad Grama|||Voter No. 553<br>Jose, son of Joseph,<br>House No. 211<br>Cheruvallil House,<br>with identity card|marked<br>voters list and<br>signed<br>register of the| 19 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 ||Panchayat|summons|both|No.KL/14/084/087556<br>Anappara<br>Constituency in<br>Rajakkad Grama<br>Panchayat<br>casted his vote|voters| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |3.|The Returning<br>Officer,<br>Neerikode West<br>Constituency of<br>Alangad Grama<br>Panchayat<br>in<br>Ernakulam<br>district|summons|both|1. Voter No.471,<br>Sunil<br>Kumar,<br>s/o.Nanukuttan Nair,<br>House No.458, Ananda<br>Bhavan, with voter ID<br>Card<br>No.SECID21783452<br>2. Sl. No. 474<br>Sindhu, wife of Sunil<br>Kumar, Ananda<br>Bhavan,<br>House No. 156<br>Ananda Bhavan<br>Idendity card<br>No.SECID21783452<br>Casted their votes in<br>Alangad<br>Grama<br>Panchayat|marked<br>voters list and<br>signed<br>register of the<br>voters| |4.|The Returning<br>Officer,Ward<br>No.21 Valara<br>ward of Adimaly<br>Grama<br>Panchayat|summons|both|To prove that<br>voter No.527<br>Mini, wife of Eapen,<br>house<br>No.565,<br>Kizhakkepallikka-<br>parambil, identity card<br>No.KL/14/083/423765|marked<br>voters list and<br>signed<br>register of the<br>voters| 20 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 |||||in No.21 Valara ward of<br>Adimaly<br>Grama<br>Panchayat|| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |5.|The Returning<br>Officer, Ward<br>No.18<br>Poomamkandam<br>Ward<br>of<br>Vathikudi Grama<br>Panchayat<br>in<br>Idukki district|Summons|both|To prove that<br>1. Sri. Pradeep CK,<br>Cheganaparambil<br>House No. 136,<br>Poomamkandam<br>with Part 1,SI.<br>No.320 in Ward<br>No.18<br>Poomamkandam<br>Ward of Vathikudi<br>Grama Panchayath<br>2.Smt. Sheeba<br>Pradeep voter with<br>Part 1, SI No. 321,<br>residing at<br>Chenganaparambil,<br>House No. 136 of<br>Poomamkandam<br>Ward of Vathikudi<br>Grama Panchayat casted<br>their votes|marked<br>voters list and<br>signed<br>register of the<br>voters| 21 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 20. On an analysis of the pleadings and materials on record, it is undoubtedly clear that immediately after the first respondent’s cross examination was completed, she took steps to issue summons to witness No.7, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before this Court in O.P(C)No.1069/2022 and the passing of Ext P8 judgment. 21. After the passing of Ext P8 judgment, the petitioner again filed I.A.No.5/2022 to decide the election petition on a preliminary issue. The said application was dismissed by the court below by Ext P10 order on 3.8.2022. 22. Immediately, thereafter, the first respondent filed Ext P11 application, on 22.8.2022, to summon witnesses Nos 1 to 5, for the reasons clearly mentioned in the witness list. 22 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 23. The first respondent is the dominus litis and the onus of proof is on her to prove her case in the manner contemplated under law. The petitioner has no right to dictate terms to the first respondent – the master of the suit - especially when the petitioner has not conceded that the voters’ list in the possession of the first respondent can be accepted in evidence. 24. The above sequence of events establishes that the first respondent has been diligently conducting the election petition, which is being stalled by the petitioner at each and every stage. 25. Rule 120 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, explicitly enables summons to be issued to public officers to produce the records in their custody. 26. The court below has judicially exercised its powers and passed the impugned order by directing the 23 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 witnesses 1 to 5 to produce the voters’ list, and that they need not adduce oral evidence. The objections of the petitioner are untenable and vexatious. 27. In the light of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the afore-cited precedents, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or error in Ext P14 order, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has no doubt in its mind that the ulterior intention of the petitioner is to somehow procrastinate the final determination of the election petition by filing frivolous petitions one after the other. Resultanantly, the original petition is devoid of any merits and is hence dismissed. The court below is directed to dispose of the election petition, in accordance with law 24 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 and as expeditiously as possible, as directed by this Court in OP(C)No.2169/2021 way back on 06.12.2021. sks/6.1.2023 SD/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** 25 OP(C) No.1727 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1727/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `Exhibit-P1` ``` A COPY OF THE AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.P (ELECTION) NO.1/2021 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY ``` - `Exhibit-P2` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30.11.2021 IN O.P(ELECTION) NO.1/2022 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY` - `Exhibit-P3` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DATED 09.02.2022 IN O.P(ELECTION) NO.1/2022 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY` - `Exhibit-P4` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2022 IN O.P (C) NO.261/2022 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT` - `Exhibit-P5` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT BY THE ELECTION PETITIONER DATED 17.03.2022` ``` Exhibit-P6A TRUE COPY OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE ELECTION PETITIONER DATED 19.03.2022 ``` - `Exhibit-P7` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2022 IN I.A NO.2/2022 IN O.P (ELECTION) NO.1/2021 BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY` - `Exhibit-P8` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.06.2022 IN O.P(C) NO.1069/2022 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT` - `Exhibit-P9` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2022 IN I.A NO.4/2022 IN O.P(ELECTION) NO.1/2022 BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY` - `Exhibit-P10` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2022 IN I.A NO.5/2022 IN O.P (ELECTION) NO.1/2021 BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY` - `Exhibit-P11` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A NO.6/2022 IN O.P (ELECTION) NO.1/2021 BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY` - `Exhibit-P12` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 24.08.2022 BY THE PETITIONER TO I.A NO.6/2022` - `Exhibit-P13` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DATED 24.08.2022 TO I.A NO.6/2022` - `Exhibit-P14` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2022 IN I.A NO.6/2022 IN O.P (ELECTION) NO.1/2021 BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADIMALY`