S NAGARATHNAMMA Vs. P MURALIDHAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vedula Venkata ramana, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner. The 1st respondent-petitioner was served but none represents the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India as against an order made in I. A. No. 394/ 2007 in Election O. P. No. 3/2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda. The 1st respondent herein as petitioner filed the said i. A. No. 394/2007 in E. O. P. No. 3/2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda under order IX Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying for restoration of Election Petition which was dismissed on 20-8-2007. The learned Junior Civil Judge, pattikonda after referring to the provisions of the Code and also Rule 7 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (in short referred to as 'the Rules'), came to the conclusion that no prejudice would be caused to the 1st respondent in the said application i. e. , the Revision Petitioner, if the application is allowed and accordingly the application was allowed on condition that the petitioner in the said application i. e. , the 1st respondent herein shall be present for cross-examination on 27-12-2007, failing which the petition stands dismissed.

(3.) SRI Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner would maintain that the learned junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda, made the said order in" I. A. No. 394/2007 in e. O. P. No. 3/2006 as Election Tribunal and the Tribunal is governed by the procedure specified by Rule 7 which deals with the procedure for trial of election petitions and in view of the fact that only certain provisions of the Code were made applicable and since the applicability of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code had not been specified, such power could not have been exercised by the said tribunal. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division bench of this Court in Kummari Ramulu v. Gangaram Penta Reddy and others (2004 (3) ALT 788 (DB) : (2004 AIHC 2757 ). The learned Counsel also further in all fairness would maintain that this application which had been thought of by the 1st respondent is a misconceived remedy but however it cannot be said that the 1st respondent is totally remediless may be that the party is entitled to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.