THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.488 of 2010 ORDER: The elections to the Gram Panchayat, Gudapalli-Pallipalem, Malkipuram Mandal, East Godavari District, were held in the year 2006. The petitioner and the 1st respondent contested the election, and the petitioner was declared elected. The 1st respondent filed E.O.P.No.2 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole, challenging the election of the petitioner, on the ground that she was below the minimum age, stipulated for the Office of Sarpanch. The petitioner filed the counter denying the allegation. The trial of the O.P., commenced, and the evidence on behalf of the 1st respondent was concluded. When the evidence on behalf of the petitioner is about to start, she filed I.A.No.908 of 2009, under Order XVIII Rule 3 C.P.C., with a prayer to permit her to depose, as a witness, after the official witnesses adduce their evidence. The application was opposed by respondents 1 to 3. Through its order, dated 07.12.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents. The only ground urged by the 1st respondent, against the petitioner, is that the latter is below the minimum age, stipulated for the Office of Sarpanch. On her part, the 1st respondent has adduced evidence to disclose that the petitioner was under aged. It is for the petitioner to disprove the same. Order XVIII C.P.C., stipulates the order in which the witnesses, and in particular the parties, have to be examined. It mandates that, a person, who figures as a party, must depose first, as a witness, before any witness, on his behalf, is examined. It is only with the permission of the Court that the order can be changed. In the instant case, the petitioner intends to depose as witness, after the official witnesses are examined. Such a course is totally impermissible. The burden squarely rests upon the petitioner to prove that she was of appropriate age, at the time of election. The official respondents have absolutely no concern with this aspect. The only ground urged by the petitioner is that, the relevant certificates are with respondents 2 and 3. Even that ground cannot be accepted. The petitioner is supposed to be in possession of the relevant documents and testimonials to prove her case. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under challenge. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:21.01.2010. GJ