M. Seetharama Murti, J.

In this Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the 1st respondent in the OP/unsuccessful petitioner, the challenge is to the order, dated 29.12.2016, of the learned Senior Civil Judge, at Nalgonda, passed in I.A. No.1343 of 2015 in O.P. No.53 of 2014.

2. I have herd the submissions of Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The respondents 2 to 7 are stated to be not necessary parties. I have perused the material record.

3. The facts, which are necessary to be stated as a preface to this order, in brief, are as follows:

The 1st respondent herein/election petitioner (hereinafter, 'election petitioner') brought the OP under Rule 1 of A.P. Municipalities (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1967, against the revision petitioner/1st respondent in the OP (hereinafter, 1st respondent') and others seeking a decree to declare the election of the 1st respondent/revision petitioner to the post of 7th ward councillor of Nalgonda Municipality as void and set aside her election by declaring it as void; and, award costs. The 1st respondent having entered appearance failed to file her counter. Therefore, she was set ex parte, on 22.08.2014. Thereafter, she filed the afore-stated I.A.1343 of 2015 under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('the Code') requesting to set aside the ex parte order, dated 22.08.2014. The said petition was resisted by the election petitioner. On merits and by the orders impugned in this revision, the trial Court/Tribunal refused to set aside the ex parte order and dismissed the petition of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the 1st respondent in the election OP is before this Court.

4. The case of the 1st respondent is this:

The original petition is filed by the election petitioner challenging the election of the 1st respondent and to declare it as void. The 1st respondent, who is the returned candidate, entered appearance. The OP was posted to 22.08.2014 for filing counter in the OP. However, for non-availability of certain important information with regard to preparation of voters list, fixation of boundaries of the wards of the Division in Nalgonda Municipality and her inability to contact the advocate in time for preparation of the counter for want of the aforesaid information, she could not file her counter. Therefore, she was set ex parte on 22.08.2014. Hence, she filed petition to set aside the ex parte order and receive the counter on file, which is filed along with the petition.

4.1 The case of the election petitioner is this:

The allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition of the 1st respondent are invented. An election petition is to be disposed of expeditiously. The petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code has no application to the case on hand. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/revision petitioner herein would submit as follows: 'The 1st respondent was set ex parte in the election petition for non-filing of the counter, on 22.08.2014. She filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order without any delay; and, to show her bona fides, she also filed her counter along with the said petition. But the learned Senior Civil Judge, erroneously dismissed the petition and refused to set aside ex parte order and give an opportunity to the 1st respondent to file counter and contest the election petition.' In the impugned order, the learned Judge inter alia held that the election Tribunal has to follow the procedure under the Municipalities Act and that all the powers of the Civil Court under the Code are not available to the Election Tribunal and the powers are only confined for summoning the witnesses, issuance of interrogatory, discovery & inspection and production of documents and that its powers as an ele