B.N.MAHAPATRA, J. - (1.)THIS Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.08.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhuban (hereinafter referred to as 'Election Tribunal') in Election Misc. Case No.1 of 2012 under Annexure-4, in which the Election Tribunal in the interest of justice, has allowed the two petitions under Anenxure-2 series filed by the election petitioner with a direction for examination of two official witnesses, i.e., Medical Officer, C.H.C., Mathakargola and Anganwadi Worker Smt. Mantri of Centre No.1 of Village Ekatali and for production of original documents in their custody as mentioned in the said petitions.
(2.)CASE of the petitioner in a nutshell is that the present writ petitioner is the returned candidate and opposite Party No.1, who is the election petitioner before the Election Tribunal presented Election Misc. Case No.1 of 2012 praying therein to declare the election of the writ petitioner void and to declare her as duly elected candidate to the post of Sarapanch of Ekatali Grama Panchayat under Bhuban Panchayat Samiti. The ground of challenge to the election of the returned candidate to the office of Sarapanch, Ekatali Grama Panchayat is that the petitioner has begotten three children, namely, Sonalika, Sibani and Subbransusekhar on 02.08.2002, 08.05.2006 and 24.12.2009 respectively, i.e. after the cut off date through her husband Nandakishore Behrea. In the course of hearing, the election petitioner was examined as PW-1 and cross-examined. Election Petitioner filed two petitions, one for summoning the Medical Officer, C.H.C., Mathakargola for production of document, such as M.C.A. register, JSY card of third child etc.; and another petition for summoning the Anganwadi Worker of Centre No.1 of village Ekatali for production of documents which were already exhibited on being obtained under R.T.I. Act. The writ petitioner filed objection to those petitions on the ground that relevance of those documents has not been indicated in terms of Order 7, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and in view of the deposition of PW-1 in cross-examination to the effect that the documents were prepared on the basis of instruction given by her husband in the year 2012 i.e. 24.2.2012 examination of witness is not necessary. It is also stated that the documents vide Ext.1 having been exhibited, further production of the same is not necessary. Therefore, learned Election Tribunal is not justified to allow the two petitions filed by the election petitioner.
Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Election Tribunal without appreciating materials on record and the stands taken in the objection petitions in its proper perspective has erroneously allowed the two petitions filed by the election petitioner. Relevance of summoning the witnesses and production of documents has not been indicated in the petitions.

(3.)MR .Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.1 submitted that opposite party No.1 being the petitioner in the election petition filed the documents obtained under the R.T.I. Act along with the election petition. After examination of witnesses two petitions were filed by the election petitioner under Section 37 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'GP Act') for summoning witnesses and production of documents. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.08.2012, summonses were issued to the said authorities and on