THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.No. 3533 of 2009 Date: 23.10.2009 Between: Bhoge Venkatesh ………….. Petitioner and Gaddam Suresh Goud …….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.No. 3533 of 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 1st respondent in O.P.No. 9 of 2006, aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge at Chennur in Adilabad District in I.A.No. 36 of 2009 moved therein. I.A.No. 36 of 2009 has been filed seeking to reopen the matter (O.P.No. 9 of 2006) for enabling the petitioner to lead evidence on his side. O.P.No. 9 of 2006 has been instituted by the respondent questioning the validity of the election of the present petitioner as Sarpanch of Kistapur Gram Panchayat. The said O.P. was posted for evidence of the present petitioner on 27th February 2009 and on the said date, the petitioner did not turn up. Hence, his side of the evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. The petitioner in the O.P. completed the evidence on his side. By the orders passed on 27th February 2009 by the Court, virtually, the present petitioner, who is the respondent and contesting party in the said O.P., could not lead evidence on his side. In the absence of any such evidence being lead on his side, it becomes almost a one-sided affair. Neither the petitioner in the O.P. nor the Court could be blamed for this situation. It is the petitioner, who has brought about such a situation on to himself. By delaying the leading of the evidence on his side, he ran the risk of reducing himself to a “sitting duck” position in the O.P. However, the fact remains that the main challenge in the O.P. relates to the election of the petitioner herein as the Sarpanch. If the election of the present petitioner is carried out strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law, the democratic will of the majority of the electorate should necessarily prevail. For a default committed by the petitioner herein, such a principle should not be allowed to be derailed. While the lapse and laxity on the part of the present petitioner, in normal circumstances, is not condonable, in the sense that he should not have dragged on the proceedings for years together, but at the same time, recognizing the essence of the elections in a democratic polity is to allow the majority opinion to prevail, I consider it appropriate to provide the present petitioner one more opportunity to lead evidence on his side. The petitioner in O.P. No. 9 of 2006 who is the respondent herein cannot be faulted on any score. I, therefore, directed the present petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the credit of the O.P., which the petitioner has since deposited. I direct the Junior Civil Judge at Chennur to pay the said amount of Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner in O.P.No. 9 of 2006 by way of a crossed account payee cheque/pay order, so that it will offset a portion of the expenditure incurred by the petitioner in the said O.P. for the delay caused by the present petitioner. To strike a balance between the claims of the parties, I consider it appropriate to direct the present petitioner to be present before the learned Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Chennur on 4th November 2009 without fail and subject himself to cross-examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner will undertake to communicate this fact to the learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P.No. 9 of 2006, so that the petitioner in the said O.P. would leave necessary instructions with the said learned counsel to enable him to cross-examine the present petitioner on 4th November 2009. In case the Court is convinced that there are valid and justifiable reasons for adjourning the matter to any other date, to enable the counsel for the petitioner in O.P. No. 9 of 2006 to continue the cross-examination, it may do so, by adjourning the matter not beyond three weeks. The petitioner herein shall cooperate with the Court in completing his side of evidence on or before 31st December 2009. Since it is an O.P. moved in 2006, I direct the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chennur to complete the hearing and decide the O.P. on or before 31st January 2010. In case, the petitioner herein who is the respondent in O.P. No. 9 of 2006 fails to appear on 4th November 2009 or on such subsequent dates the Court adjourns the matter for his further appearance/cross- examination, the Court is at liberty to proceed in the matter without adjourning the case any further for the convenience of the petitioner or any other witness to be examined on his behalf. The Civil Revision Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Registry, to communicate a copy of this order within one week to the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Chennur. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also directed to file a memo before the learned Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Chennur bringing to its notice the gist of the order passed by this Court in this Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner should also intimate by Registered Post to the counsel appearing for the petitioner in O.P. No. 9 of 2006 the gist of the order passed today, within one week from today. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 23rd October 2009 ksld