IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5714 OF 2009 Between:- Kayithi Bheeshma …Petitioner A n d Vurugiti Atchibaba and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5714 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-10-2009 in I.A.No.383 of 2009 in E.O.P.No.8 of 2006, on the file of the Election Tribunal- cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein for recall of R.W.6 for cross-examination, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed election petition in E.O.P.No.8 of 2006 against the petitioner herein and others for declaration that the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Chinthalapalem Gram Panchayat of Kothavalasa Mandal as null and void on account of acceptance of nomination by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the 5th respondent, on the wrong identity at the time of scrutiny of the nomination and also for declaration that the first respondent is duly elected as Sarpanch. 4. During enquiry, the 5th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer was sought to be examined as R.W.6. He was examined- in-chief and was also cross-examined by other respondents on 22-07-2009. The petitioner, who was the first respondent in the O.P., did not, however, cross-examine R.W.6, as according to him he was hospitalized as on that date due to malaria and jaundice and, therefore, could not give instructions to the Advocate for cross-examination. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.383 of 2009 seeking recall of R.W.6-Mandal Revenue Officer for cross-examination by the petitioner. But the said application was dismissed on the ground that the counsel for the appellant reported no cross-examination and, therefore, it was recorded as ‘nil’. 5. The petitioner has produced discharge sheet issued by Neeharika Hospital, Kothavalasa showing that he was admitted in the hospital on 15-07-2009 for treatment for malaria and jaundice and he was discharged from hospital on 26-07-2009. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the said certificate produced by the petitioner showing his hospitalization during the period from 15-07-2009 to 26-07-2009. R.W.6 is an official witness being the Mandal Revenue Officer and Election Officer and he is an important witness and his evidence has crucial bearing over the dispute in vogue and would be certainly of assistance to the Court in arriving at a just decision. 6. Under those circumstances, it would only be just and appropriate that an opportunity is given to the petitioner contesting respondent in the election O.P., to cross-examine R.W.6 so that the matter can be disposed of comprehensively with all the necessary evidence made available on record. 7. In the circumstances and having regard to the nature of the dispute in vogue and the relevancy and importance of the evidence of the official witness-R.W.6, it is considered that he be recalled to enable the petitioner to cross-examine him. The petitioner is, however, directed to pay costs of Rs.300/- to the first respondent herein. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, is directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioner, on payment of costs, to cross-examine R.W.6 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd January, 2010 Lrkm.