PENUMATCHA JAYA RAO Vs. PAIDIPAMULA NEHRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders passed by the Election Tribunal under A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1994-Cum-Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda dated 18-3-2002 in I.A.No. 190/2000 and 189/2000 in E.P.No. 8/2001 respectively.

(2.) As the parties and tacts in both the- person petitionars are one and the same they are being heard together and disposed of this common order.

(3.) The revision petitioner (respondent No. 1 in OP) got elected himself as Sarpanch to the Teluguraopalem Grampanchayat, Ghantasala Mandalam, Krishna District in the elections held on 17-8-2001. The first respondent herein (petition in OP) and the eighth respondent contested the election and first respondent (petitioner in OP) who lost the election by margin of one vote challenged the election of the revision petitioner under Section 233 of A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1994 before the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda on various grounds. In ground No. 4, it was asserted that the first respondent distributed arrack, liquor and money to the voters and accordingly influenced the voters to cast their votes, which fact was brought to the notice of the election authorities. In ground No. 6, it was mentioned that the first respondent and the seventh respondent resided in one house previously and the seventh respondent exercising his undue influence allotted works under Neeru Meeru scheme and withdrew an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and with the undue influence of the seventh respondent, several irregularities and corrupt practices have been done by the first respondent. In ground No. 9 it was alleged that on completion of counting, the seventh respondent entered the counting hall and took three invalid ballot papers and decided them as valid in favour of the first respondent which resulted in declaration of the first respondent herein as duly elected Sarpanch with one vote and in ground No. 10, it was alleged that the seventh respondent played an active role in getting the first respondent elected to the office of the Sarpanch by abusing his power. On receiving the notice, the first respondent- revision petitioner herein entered his appearance through his counsel and the case was adjourned from time to time for filing counter. Respondents 2 to 6 in the election OP filed their counter. As the revision petitioner herein has not filed his counter, the Election Tribunal adjourned the matter on payment of costs. Though the revision petitioner deposited the costs did not choose to file counter, but filed two IAs, namely, I.A.No. 189/2002 under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the election petition for non disclosing of valid cause of action in the election petition which was not verified as contemplated under law and I.A.No. 190/2002 under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to strike of the pleadings in respect of the paragraphs 4 to 15 in the main election petition. The learned Election Tribunal by the impugned orders dt. 8-3-2002 dismissed both the IAs holding that after granting several adjournments for enabling the revision petitioner to file counter, the revision petitioner has not filed any counter but filed the IAS to protract proceedings. Whether there is any cause of action and the verification was proper or not for entertaining the election petition can be decided only on filing of a counter and framing of issues. Striking of the pleadings at the initial stage is not desirable unless the court feels that such paragraphs delayed the trial and such paragraphs abuse the process of court. It is not the stage to come to the conclusion that certain paragraphs are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious which may tend to source or embarass. Assailing the above orders, the present revision petitions i.e., 1620/2002 and 1607/2002 respectively are filed.