1. 'This application has been moved by the petitioner praying therein for summoning the Returning Officer to give evidence, regarding the process/conduct of polling and counting of votes and produce the entire R & Ps including Electoral List, counting of votes conducted by the Presiding Officers and consolidation made by the Returning Officer. The application is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. The reason for summoning the Returning Officer and production of record as mentioned in para.3 of the supporting affidavit is that the vote of one dead person was cast and that the vote, of a woman who was in 'Iddat' was also cast and that the objections raised by the polling agent of the petitioner in this respect were not entertained. In order to verify such contention of the petitioner production of R & Ps was necessary.
2. ' The petitioner has annexed photostat copy of death certificate of Furqan Ali Ansari, and Zaitoon Begum alongwith original copies of applications addressed to the Presiding Officer, Seth Hafiz School, PS-45 Hyderabad.
3. ' Counter-affidavit to this applicatic: was filed by respondent Abdul Rehman Rajput whereby he denied the assertions made in the application and its supporting affidavit. It was pleaded that the application was nothing but an afterthought and that the respondent shall be seriously prejudiced by grant of such application.
4. ' The arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.
5. ' The petitioner himself appeared as his own witness and was cross-examined on 25-6-2003.
6. Besides Mst. Tasleem Ansari and Muhammad Arif were tendered in evidence from petitioner side.
7. The petitioner side was closed on 25-6-2003. The evidence of respondent side was recorded on 1- 7-2003 and 2-7-2003 whereafter respondent also closed his side. The mater is fixed for final arguments.
8. 'Mst. Tasleem Ansari, witness of the petitioner in para.4 of her affidavit in evidence stated that a woman came to cast vote of a woman who was in 'Iddat' period due to death of her husband.
9. Neither the name of woman who was allegedly in 'Iddat' nor the identity of the lady who attempted to tender bogus vote was disclosed in the affidavit-in-evidence. Copies of the applications alleged to have been offered to the Presiding Officer could not be received in evidence after the evidence of the witness having already been recorded. The matter has since concluded and is at the stage of final arguments. It does not seem to be appropriate to make further observations as those are bound to touch the merits of the case and may prejudice the case of either party. However, one thing is glaringly clear that summoning of the Returning Officer and production of the entire record at this belated stage is uncalled for. It would definitely prplong the matter and is bound to cause disadvantage to the case of respondent. Grant of the prayer of the petitioner will amount to the abuse of B process of the Court instead of advancing the cause of justice. Following the Rule laid down in Mst. Bashir Bibi v. Aminuddin and 9 others 1972 SCM R 534, this is a fit case to decline to accede to such request in the given circumstances.
10. ' Application is accordingly dismissed.