THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5244 of 2009 Dated:- 03rd February, 2011 Between:- Singamsetty Subbaramaiah …Petitioner AND Thippirisetty Thulasiramaiah and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5244 of 2009 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the decree and order dated 10.09.2009 passed in I.A.No.184 of 2009 in Election O.P.No.70 of 2006 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 2. The petitioner herein is the first respondent in the said Election O.P. Challenging his election as MPTC, the first respondent herein filed Election O.P.No.70 of 2006 before the Court below. Unfortunately, the matter has been kept pending since then for one reason or the other. It appears that the respondents herein earlier filed I.A.No.264 of 2008 before the Court below praying to receive certain documents and the said I.A. was allowed. Then, he filed the Chief Affidavit on 25.08.2009 and filed the impugned I.A. to receive the documents in September, 2009. 3. The Court below held that the petitioner had already obtained documents, i.e., Study Certificate on 24.08.2009, Caste Certificate on 17.06.2006 and Title Deed Passbooks on 17.09.2003 and that he has not referred about these documents in his earlier application in I.A.No.264 of 2008. It is also observed that the petitioner, though filed chief affidavit on 25.08.2009, has not referred about the Study Certificate dated 24.08.2009 and his contention that the documents were misplaced and were traced recently cannot be accepted. Accordingly, petition to condone delay in filing the document was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, present revision has been filed. 4. As seen from the record, it is clear that the Election O.P. was filed in the year 2006. Now we are in the year 2011. It also appears that the petitioner’s five-year term as MPTC is almost over and if the matters are kept pending like this, the very purpose of filing the Election O.P. will be defeated. 5. Be that as it may, in the trial Court, when a party wants to file certain documents in support of his case, normally, the Courts must be liberal and allow the parties to adduce all the evidence in support of their contention. It is not desirable on the part of the trial Courts to close the doors when the parties intend to adduce evidence. However, in the instant case, as seen from the record, it is clear that the petitioner did not whisper anything about the documents filed in I.A.No.264 of 2008 or in the chief affidavit filed by him on 25.08.2009. Normally, all the documents had to be filed along with the plaint by the plaintiffs or by the defendants while filing the written statements. They cannot delay the matter and for the purpose of prolonging the litigation, file the documents as and when they wish. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner itself shows that there are some laches on his part. But yet, I feel it appropriate that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file documents before the Court below. 6. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to pass orders as follows:- 7. On condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the District Legal Services Authority, Chittoor District, within a period of 15 days from today, the civil revision petition stands allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. The Court below is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. ___________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 03rd February, 2011 Bvv Note:- Issue C.C. by 04.02.2011 (B/o) Bvv