THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. No. 1444 of 2010 Dated. 08–10-2010 Between: Peteti Rama Murthy …Petitioner Vs. Gopula Venkata Rao and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 1444 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 20- 02-2010 of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District rejecting I.A.No. 1529 of 2009 in E.O.P.No. 12 of 2006. The revision petitioner is a respondent in E.O.P.No. 12 of 2006 and the Sarpanch of Guntupalli Gram Panchayat, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District. The 1st respondent herein filed the election petition to declare him as the duly elected Sarpanch of the village and for other reliefs. After the evidence on either side is closed and when the matter is coming up for arguments, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 1529 of 2009 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to recall R.W.1 and R.W.4 so as to enable the revision petitioner to confront them with an endorsement made by R.W.4 on the telegram issued by the High Court said to have been received on 20-06-2006 at 11-00 A.M. and to mark the same on his behalf. The above application was rejected by the Court below stating that the revision petitioner is seeking to recall himself and to recall R.W.4 on the ground that the document has to be confronted. If the document is to be marked through the revision petitioner himself as R.W.1, the document ought to have been filed along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the same. If the document is required to be confronted through R.W.4, he can be recalled. Both R.W.1 and R.W.4 cannot be recalled for the purpose of being confronted with the document in question, since the question of confrontation of the telegram by R.W.1 does not arise. The Court below further held as follows: …It was clearly not addressed to the present petitioner/respondent No.1. When the Telegram itself was not addressed to him, then how the petitioner has got the Xerox copy of the same has to be explained. But, no such explanation has been given by him. Likewise, when the Telegram was received by the Election Officer i.e., R.W.4 directly there is no need for him to give an endorsement or to furnish Xerox copy of the Telegram to the petitioner. The reason for obtaining such Xerox copy and such an endorsement should be specifically explained by the petitioner. No such explanation is offered by the petitioner in this regard. As seen from the pleadings, the petitioner did not plead that he had obtained such an endorsement upon the Xerox copy of the Telegram from the Election Officer or about its availability with him. In the circumstances, since the document is not pleaded, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need or necessity to mark the document by recalling either R.W.1 and R.W.4. In fact, the document overrides the evidence of R.W.4 regarding the time of receipt of the Telegram. Since the custody of the document is not properly explained, such an overriding aspect cannot be permitted under law. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no tenable grounds to recall R.W.1 and R.W.4 as prayed for. This Court discerns no error in the exercise of discretion by the Court below which warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits. The revision is dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 08-10-2010 Pvks/*