Point of Law :
The amendments are carried out ‘to curb the phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the Civil Court…… Undoubtedly, unduly liberal approach in this regard would frustrate the purpose for which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are amended

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri A.Prabhakar Rao and learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sri K Buchi Babu.

2. This revision petition is filed by 6th respondent in Election O.P.No.1 of 2019 questioning the order dated 20.11.2019 in I.A.No.2131 of 2019.

3. Election O.P.No.1 of 2019 is filed by the first respondent herein challenging the election of revision petitioner as Sarpanch of Dharmaram village, Parkal mandal, Warangal district. The challenge to the election of petitioner as Sarpanch is on the ground that she is blessed with three children born after 31.05.1995, therefore is not qualified to contest the election. It was alleged that at the stage of scrutiny of nominations, first respondent raised objections on entitlement of petitioner to contest the election but said objection was illegally rejected and as petitioner was not qualified to contest, declaration is sought to declare that the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch as void and to declare that the 6th respondent has violated the provisions of Section 21(3) of the Telangana Gram Panchayat Act, 2018. Petitioner entered her appearance and filed counter opposing the stand of first respondent. Petitioner asserted that three children were born to her prior to 31.05.1995, therefore, the embargo imposed in the Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch is not attracted to her.

4. In said Election O.P. first respondent filed I.A.No.2131 of 2019 under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of C.P.C. praying to receive the documents. In paragraph-3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, first respondent has listed out nine documents which she intended to present in support of her contention that children of petitioner were born after the cut off date and therefore disqualification is applicable. The documents sought to be presented are:

(i) and (ii) Marriage certificate issued by Executive Officer (Additional Commissioner), Sri Bhadrakali temple along with memo; (iii) proceedings of the Additional Commissioner/ Information Officer, Municipal Corporation, Warangal with regard to date of birth of sons of petitioner; (iv) Certified copies of date of births of children of petitioner from Correspondent, Baby Sainik High School, Gopalpur, Hanamkonda; (v) Proceedings of the Additional Commissioner, GWMC, Warangal addressed to Sub Inspector of Police, Parkal; (vi) certified copies of two types of date of birth certificates of children of petitioner; (vii) memo issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal with regard to the proceedings pertaining to non availability of date of birth certificates of petitioner; (viii) Copy of F.I.R and (ix) Charge sheet. The application to receive the enlisted documents was allowed by the Election Tribunal. Hence, this revision.

5. According to learned counsel for petitioner, while filing the Election Petition, the petitioner therein should file list of documents in her possession to support her claim, where as, the documents mentioned in I.A. were not filed along with Election Petition. Some of the documents relate to post institution of Election O.P. It is not permissible to file any document subsequently once Election Petition is filed. By placing reliance on provision in Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC he would submit that no sufficient cause was shown in the I.A., as to why those documents were not filed along with the Election Petition and the relevancy of those documents. It is not the case of first respondent that those documents were not within her knowledge and in possession when the Election Petition was filed. When there was no explanation to satisfy the Court on bona fides of first respondent in not filing the documents along with the Election Petition, the Election Tribunal erred in accepting the plea and permitting the documents to be received. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Nyayapathi Srinivas Raghavan Vs Burra Adinarayana Sastry, 20