THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 7487 of 2008 Oral order: Questioning the order dated 17.03.2008 passed by respondent No.3, namely the District Election Officer and District Collector, Adilabad, allowing the application in I.A. No. 2 of 2008 in O.P. No. 4 of 2006, filed by respondent No.2 praying to receive certain documents. Respondent No.2 filed the O.P. questioning the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Basar. Respondent No.2 filed the present I.A. under Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C. praying to receive certain documents, and respondent No.3, by the impugned order, allowed the said application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of C.P.C. in their entirety are not applicable to the proceedings in O.P. before the Election Tribunal, and the order passed by the Tribunal, allowing the I.A. filed by respondent No.2 to receiver certain documents is contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kummari Ramulu v. Gangaram Penta Reddy[1]. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that as per Rule 7 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, the Election Tribunal, is entitled to enquire into an election petition in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the trial of suit. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 17363 of 2008, dated 12.09.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayt Raj for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6. As per Rule 7 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, C.P.C. is made applicable for adjudication of election disputes. For effective adjudication of disputes, the Election Tribunal can evolve its own procedures to do substantial justice to the parties. In this case, the documents, which respondent No.2 sought to receive are crucial, and the Tribunal upon examining those documents, allowed the I.A. filed by respondent No.2. Even though the petitioner filed the writ petition questioning the order passed by respondent No.3 allowing the application filed by respondent No.2 to receive certain documents, the fact remains, this Court has not granted any interim order, staying the proceedings before the Election Tribunal. As there was no stay of the proceedings granted, the Election Tribunal proceeding with the matter further, completed the evidence and arguments and kept the matter for orders. In the above view of the matter, and at this point of time, I see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order, particularly when Rule 7 of the Rules, make the provisions of C.P.C. applicable for adjudication of election disputes. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 8th June, 2009 KSR [1] 2004 (3) ALD 280 (DB)