M GANGANNA Vs. A CHINNA GURAVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Yellatur Gram Panchayat. His election was challenged under Section 233 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the Act), read with Rule 2(1) of A.P.Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (for short, the Rules). After parties completed pleadings, the matter went in trial. The petitioner completed his evidence. First respondent who filed election petition being E.O.P.No.24 of 2001 before the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Contending that affidavit in lieu of chief examination contains various averments, which were not taken in the election O.P. the petitioner filed I.A.No.270 of 2003 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying the Election Tribunal to set aside the sworn affidavit of first respondent herein. The application having been rejected by order dt.31.3.2003 the petitioner initially filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. When this Court on 31.3.2003 observed that such revision petition is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution, the civil revision petition being C.R.P.No.1989 of 2003 was withdrawn and present writ petition is filed.

(2.) Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Election Tribunal being persona designata, cannot be said to have all powers under CPC. Secondly, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that a witness does not include party to proceedings and therefore order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC has no application which enables the party to file affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Lastly he would contend that when the petitioner wants to examine first respondent he himself has to come into box and subject himself for examination in chief. After anxious consideration, I am of the considered opinion that none of the submissions are sustainable. Insofar as submission regarding power of Tribunal is concerned, Rule 7 of the Rules lays down that every election petition shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal in accordance with the procedure applicable under CPC. All the provisions of CPC are made applicable by reference to the Election Tribunals. Therefore, it is now well settled that all the subsequent amendments to CPC get incorporated into Rule 11 though the amendment to Order XVIII Rule 4 was not there when the Rules were made. The submission is therefore devoid of merits. Insofar as the second submission is concerned, the same ignores Order XVIII itself. Under Rule 3A of Order XVIII of CPC if a party to proceeding wants to examine himself as witness, he shall have to appear before any other witness he is examined to substantiate his or her case. There are abundant indications that even a party to proceedings can be witness. Indeed, under Evidence Act also, in a given case, party to the proceeding can only be evidence and can only be witness. Even evidence based on single witness can be considered to decide the issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on 'Ramnath Iyer's' 'Law Lexicon' in support of his contention that witness does not include party to proceeding. The definition relied on by the learned counsel reads as under. Witness. (Testis.) One who gives evidence in a cause; an indifferent person to each party, sworn to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth. 1.One who gives or is to give evidence in a cause; a person sworn to speak the truth in a trial; one who attests a document; one that is cognizant of something by direct experience (S. 137, Indian Evidence Act); 2.[S.15(2), prov., Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act]. WITNESS. Witness may lie, either be mistaken themselves or wickedly intend to deceive others....but....circumstances cannot lie.

(3.) Even 'Ramnath Iyer's' 'Law Lexicon' defines a witness as one who gives or is to give evidence in a case. It does not exclude party to suit or proceedings. Be that as it is, it is now well settled that when provision of statute law is plain and clear any narrow construction by process of interpretation annotated by supportive precedents, is not required. Such exercise would be causing damage to the very provision itself. (See BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY v. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT. LTD.). No other ground is urged. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.