RAMULU Vs. GANGARAM PENTA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was successful candidate in the election to the post of Sarpanch of Rayapalli- D Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District. Respondent No.l, a defeated candidate, filed a petition under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules") questioning appellant's election. In addition to the challenge to the election of the appellant, Respondent No.l also claimed a declaration that he himself has been duly elected and accordingly impleaded Respondents 2, 3 and 4 also as parties to the Election Petition, since the relevant Rules enjoin upon the appellant before the Election Tribunal to implead in his petition all other candidates, who were nominated in elections but had not withdrawn before the polling. Election Petition was set down for trial. After a period of almost two years of the pendency of the petition before the Election Tribunal, an application was filed by Respondent No. 1, being I.A. No.203 of 2003, under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the name of the third respondent in the Election Petition as Devrampalli Ravikwnar instead of Devrampalli Rajkuniar alleging that Devrampalli Rajkuniar is the brother of Devrampalli Ravikwnar. Devrampalli Rajkuniar was not a candidate, who was nominated for the election, but it was Devrampalli Ravikumar who was the candidate who had also contested the election.

(2.) In that application, Election Tribunal directed notice to be issued on 11.9.2003 to the party proposed to be substituted in place of third respondent returnable on 25.9.2003. On 25.9.2003 when the application came up for consideration, the Election Tribunal passed the following order:

(3.) As a matter of fact, consideration of the application had taken place on 11.9.2003 and on the application seeking impleadment the Election Tribunal expressed an opinion that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of Respondent No.l in wrongly describing person as a party, who ought to have been impleaded. This order was challenged by the appellant before this Court by filing writ petition. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no objection had been taken by the appellant about wrong description of the party when he contested the election petition and his objection was only that the party could be impleaded in exercise of power under Order I. Rule 10 and not by invoking Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, whether application was maintainable under Order VI, Rule 17 or under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was immaterial.