IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.12735 of 2009 Between: Challa Satyanarayana, S/o. Surya Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Tadi Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Ramanna and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.12735 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri K. Ramesh representing Sri S.R. Sanku, representing the respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 09.06.2009 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District –cum - Election Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 in I.A. No.446 of 2009 in E.O.P. No.4 of 2006 and to set aside the same and consequently to allow the said application. 3. Several facts had been narrated in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The respective pleadings had also been placed before this Court. 4. The application was filed by the petitioner herein/respondent No.1 in Election O.P, to issue summons to the person in management of Sri Raja Gopala Swamy Devasthanam, Narsapur to produce the receipt dated 18-08-1988 and to give evidence with reference to the said receipt to prove the name of his wife as Eswari, but not Mentaleswari. The main ground on which the said application was dismissed is that no such plea had been taken and hence letting any such evidence is impermissible. 5. A copy of the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner herein/respondent No.1 in Election O.P. is placed before this Court and paragraph No.15 of the same reads as under: “The petitioner filed the study cum date of birth certificate issued by Viswakavi Residential Public School. The date of birth of the eldest born was correctly given as 20-12-1991 but the Birth Certificate given by the Palakol Municipality relating to the births of the eldest born, second born and third born children of this respondent do not relate to the children of this respondent respectively. In fact all the children were born at Nagarajupet at the house of in laws of this respondent. Nagarajupet is a Rural Panchayat and is not included in the Palakol Municipality. The children were not delivered in the Surya Prakash Nursing Home. The particulars relating to the name of the mother given in the birth certificate of the three children are completely false. This respondent’s wife is Eswari but not Mentaleswari. As such the birth certificates cannot be said to be that of his three children of this respondent. This respondent humbly submits that the information given by the Hospital authorities to the Municipality is not correct in respect of the important aspect of the name of the mother and the information given relating to the date of birth is also not correct.” 6. In the light of the said specific stand taken, the reason recorded by the Election Tribunal cannot be a sustainable one. Even otherwise, normally the general rule is to permit the evidence to be adduced and to refuse the evidence always would be an exemption. In the light of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is hereby set aside. 7. At this stage Sri K. Ramesh representing Sri S.R. Sanku states that the writ petitioner had been adopting delaying tactics and had been creating obstacles in disposal of the main Election O.P. 8. Let the Tribunal make an endeavour to dispose of the main Election O.P. forthwith. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J November 04, 2009 MD