The court affirmed that election petitions are not strictly bound by CPC provisions, allowing marked documents to be admissible unless objected to at the time of marking.

JUDGMENT
K. Lakshman, J.
(1) Heard Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner - respondent No. 1, Mr. Ramesh Kuthumbaka, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 - Election Petitioner and Mr. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing Mr. Ramesh Kantikineni, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

(2) The petitioner herein is respondent No.l in E.P. No.3 of 2024, while respondent No.l herein is the Election Petitioner in the aforesaid E.P. The said Election Petition is filed to declare the election of the petitioner herein as returned candidate for 117 - Kothagudem Assembly Constituency, as null and void and for other reliefs.

(3) Vide order dated 26.12.2024, this Court appointed Mr. K. Sudharshan, retired District and Sessions Judge, as Commissioner to record the evidence of the parties. He shall make an endeavour to conduct proceedings, record evidence on day to day basis keeping in view the time lines mentioned under the Representation of Peoples Act,
1951 (for short 'R.P. Act, 1951').

(4) In compliance with the said order, learned Commissioner recorded the evidence of PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P10 on 02.01.2025, and posted for further evidence on behalf of the Election Petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner - respondent No.1 filed the present petition under Order - IX, Rule - 9 read with 151 of CPC, to set aside the docket proceedings of learned Commission, dated 02.01.2025 marking and exhibiting Annexures as Exs.Pl to P10, despite the Commission lacking competence under Order - XIII, Rule - 4 of CPC to mark and exhibit the documents, contending as follows:

i) On 02.01.2025, the affidavit of chief-examination of PW. 1 (election petitioner) was filed before the learned Commissioner. On the same day, PW.l was examined in-chief and Exs.Pl to P10 were marked. Despite the oral objections raised by learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the said exhibits were marked and the said objections were not recorded in the docket proceedings. Cross-examination of PW. 1 was deferred to 06.01.2025 and summons was issued to LWs.2 to 5.
ii) On 06.01.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner herein has filed memo before the learned Commissioner stating that the documents filed by respondent No.l herein - election petitioner along with election petition are not originals and they are not even certified copies of public records. Despite oral objection, learned Commissioner marked the said documents. The learned Commissioner is not competent to mark the said documents in terms of Order - XIII, Rule - 4 of CPC and he is also not competent to reject the inadmissible documents in terms of Order - XIII, Rule - 3 read with Order - XVIII, Rule - 4 of CPC. Despite filing the memo on 06.01.2025, no orders were passed.
iii) Therefore, the docket proceedings dated 02.01.2025 of learned Commissioner wherein learned Commissioner marked and exhibited P1 to P10 are liable to be set aside and the documents are to be de-exhibited.

(5) Respondent No.1 - Election Petitioner filed counter opposing the petition contending as follows:

i) The provisions of CPC are not applicable in to while trying election petitions.
ii) All the documents were filed by the election petitioner along with election petition. Most of them are Government G.Os., and originals.
iii) There is no opposition by the petitioner herein while marking the said documents.
iv) There is no provision for de-exhibiting the documents which were already marked.
v) Therefore, there is no error in the docket proceedings dated 02.01.2025. Even then, the petitioner herein filed the present petition in order to drag on the election petition.
With the aforesaid contentions, he sought to dismiss the present petition.

(6) Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner - respondent No.1, Mr. Ramesh Kuthumbaka, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Election Pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document