IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17847 of 2008 Between: Maddipatla Jagan Mohan Rao, S/o. Nagaiah, Hindu, R/O. Kaptanupalem, H/o. Pedaprolu, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector cum Election Authority, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2 The District Panchayat Officer -Cum-Election Officer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 3 Mohammad Rasool, Lecturer, Avanigadda Degree College-Cum-Returning Officer, Pedaprolu, Grampanchayat, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District. 4 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer & Assistant Election Authority, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District. 5 Akula Nagamalleswari, W/o. Venkata Ramaiah, Hindu, R/o. Pedaprolu, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna 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 call for the records in I.A.No. 884/2008 in E.O.P.No. 12/2006 on the ﬁle of the court of the Election Tribunal cum Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda and quash the order dt. 11-08- 2008 in the said I.A. by issuing writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction and consequently to allow the said I.A. by permitting the petitioner to cross examine the RW-1. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: In the elections held in August, 2006 for the Gram Panchayat of Pedaprolu, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District, the petitioner, ﬁfth respondent and some others contested for the oﬃce of Sarpanch. The petitioner was declared elected. The ﬁfth respondent ﬁled E.O.P.No.12 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, challenging the election of the petitioner. The trial of the same is in progress. The Election Oﬃcer ﬁgured as a witness – RW.1. The petitioner ﬁled I.A.No.884 of 2008 under Order 18 CPC, with a prayer to permit him to cross-examine RW.1, only after the fifth respondent cross-examines him. The application was rejected by the Tribunal, through its order, dated 11.08.2008. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned counsel for the fifth respondent. The narrow controversy is about the order of cross- examination of RW.1. Ordinarily, a witness deposing on behalf of defendant, or respondent, must be cross- examined by other defendants or respondents ﬁrst and it is only thereafter that the plaintiff would cross-examine him. This is subject to a rider that a witness should be cross-examined ﬁrst by any party, who sails with him, and the cross-examination by the contesting party would be at the end. The context in which RW.1 is deposing is as to the validity of withdrawal of a nomination. He is not a witness sailing either with the petitioner or with the ﬁfth respondent. He would, at the most, place relevant facts and record before the Court. The real impact of the evidence of RW.1 would be felt by the petitioner. The function of the ﬁfth respondent in the limited context is only to elicit necessary information. Therefore, no prejudice would have resulted to the ﬁfth respondent, in case the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine RW.1 at the end. It is represented that RW.1 has since been cross-examined on behalf of the fifth respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order in I.A.No.884 of 2008 is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to cross-examine RW.1. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.22.10.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ