1 CGHC010289062026 2026:CGHC:32477 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3897 of 2026 Smt. Gayatri Sharma W/o Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Hasuwa, Gram Panchayat Hasuwa, Block - Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat Department Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Officer/ Prescribed Officer (Election Tribunal) Giroud, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Ritu Atul Kesharwani W/o Atul Kesharwani Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Hasuwa, Gram Panchayat Hasuwa, Block Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Rameshwari Sahu W/o Shri Gorelal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Hasuwa, Gram Panchayat Hasuwa, Block Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 5 - Election Officer (Panchayat) Shri Vivek Patel Tehsildar - Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 6 - Assistant Election Officer (Panchayat, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Government Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.29 18:33:00 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 29.07.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 17.07.2026 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Election Tribunal, Giraud, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara in Case No. A202504214300026/A-89(9)/2024-25, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking summoning of a handwriting expert has been rejected and the matter has been fixed for recording of evidence without directing production of the original nomination records, despite the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2468 of 2026 remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication from the stage of framing of issues. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 17.07.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record from the Election Tribunal for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 3 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Election Tribunal/ SDO Revenue Giroud for deciding the election petition in view of the order dated 15.05.2026. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on two counts. Firstly, it is submitted that the Election Tribunal has illegally rejected the petitioner's application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC seeking issuance of summons to Dr. Sunanda Denge, a handwriting expert, whose evidence is stated to be essential for proving the petitioner's case that the nomination paper and self- declaration form of respondent No.3 do not bear her genuine signatures. It is contended that the entire election petition hinges upon the expert opinion regarding the disputed signatures and, therefore, rejection of the application has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. 3. Secondly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner had also filed an application praying for summoning the original nomination papers and self-declaration forms from the office of the Assistant Election Officer/Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kasdol. It is argued that in the absence of the original records, the handwriting expert would not be in a position to examine the disputed signatures and render an effective opinion. It is, therefore, prayed that the Election Tribunal be directed to call for 4 the original records from the concerned authority before proceeding further with the trial. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the Election Tribunal has rightly passed the order and no interference is called for in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. So far as the first grievance relating to rejection of the application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Election Tribunal has exercised its discretion in accordance with law while rejecting the said application. No jurisdictional error or perversity is demonstrated warranting interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, no interference is called for with the order rejecting the application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. 7. However, so far as the second grievance regarding production of the original nomination records is concerned, this Court finds that the original nomination papers and self-declaration forms are relevant documents for effective adjudication of the election dispute, particularly when the controversy pertains to the genuineness of the signatures appearing thereon. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the matter before the Election Tribunal was fixed for recording of evidence on 5 29.07.2026. In the interest of a fair and effective adjudication, the concerned Election Tribunal is directed to call for the original records relating to the nomination paper and self-declaration form of respondent No.3 from the concerned Assistant Election Officer before the next date of hearing and thereafter proceed with the trial in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh