CRP/5024/2014 of Shaik Nayeem Vs M.A. Faheem Uddin on 30 December 2014

ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against theorder dated 07.10.2014, passed by the Family Court-cum- AdditionalDistrict Judge, Nizamabad, in I.A.No.657 of 2014 in O.P.No.235 of2014, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitionerunder Order 1 Rule 10(1) and read with Section 151 of CPC, to addSyed Sajid Ali, S/o. Syed Mahmood Ali in the place of the petitioner inthe main O.P, was dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein had filedO.P.No.235 of 2014, on the file of the Family Court-cum-AdditionalDistrict Judge, Niziamabad, under Section 71 and read with Section77 (C) of the Act, challenging the election of the 1[st] respondent-Corporater on the ground that he has violated the proviso of Section21-B of the Act as he is having more than two children.

While things stood thus, the petitioner herein has filed theapplication in I.A.No.657 of 2014 before the Court below seeking toadd Syed Sajid Ali, S/o. Syed Mahmood Ali in the place of thepetitioner in the O.P No.235 of 2014 and the same was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contendedthat the Court below ought not to have dismissed the impugnedinterlocutory application to add the person in the place of the petitionerand the Court below ought to have considered the same and noprejudice whatever would have been caused to the respondents, if impleadment petition is allowed.

A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act and on goingthrough the order passed by the Court below, I am not inclined to admitthe revision petition. The Court below had considered the relevantprovisions of the Act and Rules framed there under apart from dealingwith the various judgments in the subject. The Court below hadextracted in its order the relevant portion of the judgment reported inChanda Bhupatiah Chokkaiah Vs. Agency Divisional OfficerPaloncha[[1]],which reads as under:

“The powers which the Election Tribunal has got whiletrying election petition, which are vested in a Court whiletrying the suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, are onlyfor discovery and inspection, enforcement of attendanceof witnesses and requiring deposit of expenses,compelling production of documents, examiningwitnesses on oath reception of evidence taken onaffidavit and issuing Commission for examination ofwitnesses. Nowhere the rule makes a provision thatElection Tribunal shall have the power to permitamendment of election petition or addition, substitution ordeletion of parties, which is a specific power available toa civil Court while trying a suit under the code of CivilProcedure Law enjoins upon trial of election petitionexpeditiously. That being the purpose, the Legislature inits wisdom rightly conferred specific powers on theElection Tribunal while trying election petition, which areenjoined upon a Civil Court while trying civil suit, and not all the powers exercisable a Civil Court as providedunder the Code of Civil Procedure. That being thepurpose, it has to be assumed that the powers, whichare not mentioned in the rules, cannot be exercised bythe Election Tribunal. More over, power to permitaddition of a party after the period of limitation is such apower that can be exercised only when it is specificallyconferred on the Tribunal. For that a Division Bench ofthis Court in Beerapalli Swaminatha Janaki VenkataRamana Reddy V. Attkuri Ammi Raju and others (ILR1971 A.P., 277 (DB), while dealing with the question ofpower of Election Tribunal in ordering transposition ofparty under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil

Conclusion

Procedure while trying election petition under the Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959, heldthat such a power is not conferred on the Tribunal andthat the Tribunal can exercise only those powers whichwere conferred upon it.”

In the light of the well considered and elaborate order, I am ofthe view that the procedural requirements are to be complied withstrictly for considering the election petitions. Further, the electionpetitions shall have to be disposed of in a time bound manner and atthis stage, the adding of one person in the place of the petitioner wouldonly cause delay and would defeat the very purpose of challenging theElection of the 1[st] respondent. In that view of the matter, I am notinclined to admit the Civil Revision Petition. However, I am inclined toaccede to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to give adirection to the Court below to complete the trial of the main O.P at theearliest and dispose of the same at an early date preferably within aperiod of six months from today.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directingthe Court below to complete the trial of the main O.P at the earliest anddispose of the same within a period of six months from today. Thereshall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,in this revision petition shall stand dismissed.

Date:30.12.2014

Gk.

____________________________

CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5024 OF 2014

Gk.

Date: 30.12.2014.

[1]2006(6) ALD 243