MALA BANDLAIAH Vs. BATHINA UTCHEERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner filed O.P. No.5 of 2001 questioning the election of the first respondent as Sarpanch of Devanakonda Gram Panchayat in which first respondent filed his counter contesting the said O.P. After the O.P. was posted for trial first respondent filed LA. No.152 of 2002 under Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C to strike out Paragraphs 4 and 5 of O.P. No.5 of 2001. After contest by the revision petitioner, the Tribunal allowed LA. No. 152 of 2002 and consequently dismissed O.P. No.5 of 2001 on the ground that no cause survives for his decision. Hence, this revision by the petitioner in O.P. No.5 of 2001.

(2.) The ground on which revision petitioner filed the O.P. is that the counting of the votes which took place in a small hall in a crowded place was not done properly and that votes polled in his favour were treated as invalid overruling the objections by his agents and in some cases his agents were not allowed to properly scrutinize the ballot papers etc. The learned Junior Civil Judge, relying on the decision rendered by this Court and Supreme Court under Representation of People Act held that since the revision petitioner failed to mention material facts in the election petition, ordered striking out Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the O.P.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the ratio in D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman and others, 1999 (2) Supreme 454, even assuming that the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 apply to election petitions filed under the Panchayat Raj Act, the Tribunal was in error in allowing LA. No. 152 of 2002 and ordering deletion of Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the election petition. The contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent is that in view of the ratio in N. V. Narasimha Rao v. Somepalli Sambaiah and others, 1999 (2) ALD 221 and Y. Venkat Reddy v. Court of the District Munsif Atmakur and others, 1998 (4) ALD 564 = 1998 (4) ALT 495, there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision.