IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.2637 of 2009 Between: N.Satyanarayana S/o.Sayanna, Occ.Retd.Employee, R/o.H.No.9-7-650, Gajulpet, Nizamabad District. … Petitioner And Smt.A.Sunanda, W/o.Pandu, H.No.10-2-79, Shivajinagar, Nizamabad District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.2637 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 04.06.2009 passed in I.A. No.1155 of 2009 in Election O.P. No.93 of 2006 on the file of the Election Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Nizamabad. The case of the petitioner is that he filed I.A. No.1155 of 2009 under Section 151 of C.P.C., with a request to reopen the case. But the learned Tribunal, without proper appreciation of the case of the petitioner, erroneously dismissed the same on the sole ground that it is filed at a belated stage. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred the present revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this revision may be dismissed as not pressed as against the respondents 1, 2 and 3, who are set ex parte in the main O.P. He further submitted that on 30.04.2009, evidence of the petitioner was closed and thereafter, summer vacation, 2009 was commenced. Immediately after reopening the Court on 04.06.2009, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1155 of 2009 seeking for reopening the case. Therefore, there is no lapse or delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the said petition. Hence, the learned Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the said petition on the sole ground that the petition is filed at a belated stage. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not pressing the revision as against the respondents 1, 2 and 3, who were set ex parte, this revision is dismissed, as against the respondents 1, 2 and 3. As could be seen from the grounds of the revision, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has been erroneous in its reasoning that the petition is filed at a belated stage. The learned Tribunal has failed to see that the affidavit (examination-in-chief) of petitioner (PW-1) was filed on 30.04.2009 and he sought the time for his cross examination, as he under went eye operation at L.V.Prasad Hospital, Hyderabad and he was advised to take rest, on this ground, the petitioner sought time for being cross examined. The learned Tribunal without appreciation of these facts, erroneously dismissed the said I.A. in a cryptic way. It is also submitted that the petition is filed at a belated stage is without any factual foundation. The learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the I.A., seeking reopening of the case, for adducing the evidence, on behalf of the petitioner, has been filed on 04.06.2009 and whereas, the learned Tribunal closed the evidence of the petitioner on 30.04.2009. The learned Tribunal ought to have seen that soon after 30.04.2009, summer vacation commenced, as such, institution of application under revision on 04.06.2009 is not at all belated stage, as observed by the learned Tribunal. It is a clear case of the petitioner that the case was posted on 30.04.2009 and after that i.e. month of May, was declared as holiday to the Court as summer vacation. Even on 30.04.2009, the petitioner filed an affidavit (examination-in-chief) and sought time for his cross- examination, on the ground that he went for eye operation and he was advised by the doctor to take rest. Further, immediately after summer vacation, as and when the Court was reopened, he filed a petition in I.A. No.1155 of 2009 on 04.06.2009. But the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said I.A. on the sole ground that it is filed at a belated stage, which in my opinion is erroneous and illegal on the part of the learned Tribunal for dismissing the same on the said sole ground, without giving any other reason. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 04.06.2009 passed in I.A. No.1155 of 2009 in Election O.P. No.93 of 2006 by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the learned Tribunal is directed to reopen the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 18.06.2010. LSK