This revision is filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2014 passed in I.A. No. 751 of 2014 in E.O.P No. 284 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, where-under petition filed under Order 26 Rule 10 (A) of CPC r/w Section 45 of Evidence Act and Section 151 of CPC was allowed and second respondent /second petitioner herein was directed to subject herself to medical examination by a doctor (Gynecologist) of her choice accompanied by a Gynecologist nominated by the Superintendent, Government District Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar to know her present health condition and to know whether she gave birth to a child recently by undergoing caesarean operation. Further direction was issued to second respondent to make herself available for medical examination on the date and time as fixed by the two doctors. Revision petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in I.A. No. 751 of 2014.

2. Elections to the municipal corporation of Karimnagar were conducted on 30.3.2014, wherein first petitioner and first respondent herein contested for post of Ward Member of 39th ward. The results of the said elections were declared on 12.5.2014 and first petitioner was declared elected and first respondent stood as second candidate. First respondent filed E.O.P. No. 284 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar challenging the election of first petitioner. One of the grounds of challenge in the E.O.P. against the election of first petitioner was that first petitioner was father of three children, therefore earned disqualification to contest the election as a Ward Member of the Municipal Corporation and his election should be declared nullified. Reliance was placed on provision in Section 21 (B) of The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short the Act ) which prescribe ineligibility to contest for municipal corporation election or to continue as a Member, if a person is blessed with more than two children. It was contended that third child was born to revision petitioners on 2.4.2014 in Apollo Nursing Home, Karimnagar and named as Mahek Fathima, but in the hospital records, the names of the parents was wrongly shown though the child was actually born to the revision petitioners. Birth of Mahek Fathima in Apollo Nursing Home is supported by a certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. It was the case of the first respondent that he has no other evidence to show that third child was born to petitioners which would be a disqualification and to nullify the election of first petitioner it is necessary to ascertain whether the second petitioner has given birth to a child on 2.4.2014 by undergoing a caesarean operation. Since there is no other evidence available to him, to ascertain the truth it is necessary to by subject the second petitioner to medical examination to know whether second petitioner had undergone caesarean operation in recent past to give birth to a child and for that purpose filed I A No. 751 of 2014. Having considered the rival submissions, the learned Principal District Judge, passed orders on 27.6.2014 directing such medical examination.

3. Learned senior counsel Sri S Satyam Reddy, appearing for revision petitioners contended that the order of the Court below is contrary to law and is erroneous. He further contended that no such application under Order 26 Rule 10 of CPC is maintainable.

4. Learned senior counsel further contended that what is challenged in E.O.P. No. 284 of 2014 was the validity of the election of the first petitioner and the lis is between first petitioner and first respondent and second petitioner is no-way concerned with the election and therefore, an unconcerned party, cannot be directed to undergo medical examination for the purpose of ascertaining truth of giving birth to a child.

5. He further contended that the order under revision offends the right of privacy and decency of a women and no such order could have been passed wit