THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.2451 of 2009 Date: 20-11-2009 Between Kagitha Lakshmi Bharathi @ Kagitha Bharathi Lakshmi … Petitioner/Respondent No.4 and 1. Murala Gopi … Respondent/Petitioner 2. The District Election Officer cum Mandal Development Officer, Pedana and 2 others … Respondents/Respondents 1 to 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.2451 of 2009 Oral Order: Despite service of notice, none appears for respondent No.3. 2. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 3. This revision is directed against the docket order, dated 02-6-2009, in O.P.No.8 of 2006, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum The Election Tribunal under A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, Machilipatnam, Krishna district in closing the evidence of respondent No.4 therein and posting the matter for arguments. 4. The petitioner herein is respondent No.4, respondent No.1 is the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 are respondents 1 to 3 in the O.P., before the Election Tribunal. 5. From the material made available to this Court, it appears that the petitioner is respondent No.4 in the O.P., and she filed the application I.A.No.91 of 2009 before the Election Tribunal to examine one Kagitha Vasu, who also filed nomination for the post of President along with her and had withdrawn from the elections. 6. The contention of respondent No.1 herein in this regard is that the said Vasu forcibly had withdrawn his nomination on account of coercion. 7. It appears that the nomination filed by respondent No.1 herein was withdrawn because of coercion. The best person, according to the revision petitioner, to speak on this subject is – the said Kagitha Vasu, who also had withdrawn voluntarily from the elections. Therefore, she wants to examine the said Vasu. 8. Substitute service was sought for and the same was ordered, as could be seen from the proceedings of the Election Tribunal. However, the same could not be served because of non-availability of the said person. On the date of hearing of the O.P., learned Counsel for the revision petitioner also was not present nor there was any information furnished to the Election Tribunal as regards the availability of the said Vasu. When there was no information before the Election Tribunal nor learned Counsel for the revision petitioner was present, the enquiry of revision petitioner was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. 9. At that stage, I do not feel it expedient to set aside the docket order of the Election Tribunal and in such an event, virtually it amounts to opening up new controversy at the fag end of the enquiry of the matter. In fact, I am of the further view that this kind of application ought to have been made at the earliest point of time. 10. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I do not feel any illegality in the docket order passed by the Election Tribunal. 11. In the result, the revision is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 20th November, 2009. Ak