IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2660 of 2009 Between: Juttiga Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Nagabhushanam, R/o. Dongaravipalem, Siddantham, Penugonda Mandalam, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Kadali Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, R/o. Dongaravipalem, Siddantham, Penugonda Mandalam, West Godavari District. 2 Election Officer, Stage-I, Eleltion of Dongaravipalem Gram Panchayat, G. Satyanarayana Raju. 3 Panchayat Secretary, Dongaravipalem Gram Panchayat, Dongaravipalem, Penugonda Mandalam, West Godavari District. 4 Assistant Election Authority-cum-Mandal Parishad Develometn Officer, Penugonda Mandalam, Penugonda, West Godavari District. 5 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 6 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Penugonda, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in I.A.No. 1663 of 2008 in E.O.P.No. 32 of 2006 and to set aside the orders Dt. 29-1-2009 passed by the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku and to allow the Writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents : MR.M.PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: The first respondent filed E.O.P.No.32 of 2006 in the Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, challenging the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Dongaravipalem Gram Panchayat. The trial of the O.P. commenced. The petitioner deposed as RW.1. However, on the ground that the first respondent did not choose to cross-examine the petitioner, it was recorded that the cross-examination of RW.1 is nil. The first respondent filed I.A.No.1663 of 2008 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, with a prayer to recall the petitioner herein and to permit him to cross-examine. The I.A., was opposed by the petitioner. Through its order, dated 29.01.2009, the Tribunal allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal is not conferred with the power to recall witnesses and the provisions of CPC are not applicable for the trial of E.O.Ps. He places reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Kummari Ramulu v. Gangaram Penta Reddy[1], Jumbarthi Kasim alias Kashiram v. Bommidi Jagannatham[2] and S.Nagarathnamma v. P.Muralidhar Reddy[3]. It is true that an Election Tribunal is not conferred with all the powers of a civil Court and only such of the provisions of CPC, as are mentioned in the rules published in G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 13.03.1995, apply to the proceedings before it. In the judgments, referred to above, this Court took note of the said provisions and held that Tribunal cannot act as a civil Court and it has to be guided by the procedure prescribed under the Rules. In para 10 of its judgment, the Division Bench in Kummari Ramulu’s case, summed up the discussion, after taking note of Rule 7 of the Rules as under: “The powers which the Election Tribunal has got while trying election petition, which are vested in a court while trying the suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, are only for discovery and inspection, enforcement of attendance of witnesses and requiring deposit of expenses, compelling production of documents, examining witnesses on oath, reception of evidence taken on affidavit and issuing commission for examination of witnesses.” Rule 7(f) of the Rules reads as under: “Issuing commissions for examination of witnesses, and may summon and examine suo motu any person whose evidence appears to him to be material.” From a perusal of this, it becomes clear that the Tribunal is conferred with the power, to issue commissions for examination of witnesses, apart from summoning and examining the witnesses. The summoning of a witness, takes in its fold the power to recall. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any illegality in allowing the I.A. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.12.02.2009. GJ [1] 2004 (3) ALT 788 (D.B.) [2] 2008 (2) ALT 22 [3] 2008 (6) ALT 303