THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2798 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order-dated 9.6.2009 passed in I.A.No. 440 of 2008 in E.O.P.No. 6 of 2006 on the file of Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. This Court on 26.3.2009 in C.R.P.No. 3785 of 2008 at paragraph 5 and 6 observed as under: “ 5. A perusal of the record would show that though the Court below, vide orders passed in I.A.Nos. 281 and 386 of 2008, directed the M.D.O twice to produce Form No. 26 dated 2.8.2006, he failed to produce the same. It is undesirable on his part in not producing the same. Though the said M.D.O filed a memo dated 7.8.2008 seeking a weeks’ time for furnishing the said document, he failed to comply with the same. So, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 440 of 2008 seeking to order for arrest of the said MDO, and it is his contention that the Court below, without disposing of the said I.A., now proceeding to dispose of the main OP itself. Whenever any application is filed, it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. But the action of the Court below in proceeding with the main OP, without deciding the IA filed by the petitioner, is not just and proper. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below is directed to consider and dispose of IA.No. 440 of 2008 in E.O.P.No. 6 of 2006 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt o a copy of this order, and then proceed with the main EOP No. 6 of 2006”. In the order dated 9.6.2009 at paragraph 11 the trial Court observed as under: “11. first of all this Court has to decide whether the document is required or not in this EOP. According to plea of the petitioner it is an important document to prove his contention that the election counting was held properly. EOP filed for cancellation of election held on 2.8.2006 as the counting process not held according to procedure. As such the document i.e. Form NO. 26 of Sarpanch is required to determine the case.” When once an application filed under Order 16 Rule 10 (3) read with Section 151 of CPC is pending and the Mandal Development Officer has to file Form No. 26, which is crucial and essential for deciding the issue in question, without taking into consideration of Form No. 26, the court below came to the conclusion and dismissed the application without giving any respect to the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No. 3785 of 2008. The trial Court should act promptly and any disregard of the order passed by this court in C.R.P.No. 3785 of 2008 will be viewed seriously. Hence, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No. 440 of 2008 in E.O.P.No. 6 of 2006 is set aside and the matter is remitted for disposing of the I.A, as directed by this Court on 9.6.2009 in C.R.P.No. 3785 of 2008. The District Judge is directed to send a report against the functioning of the Officer who has violated the order passed by this Court on 9.6.2009 in C.R.P.No. 3785 of 2008. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 02.07.2010 KA