Smt. Parshetty Sangamma ... vs Karney Srinivas And 6 Others

               Hon'ble Sri Justice T. Amarnath Goud
                        C.R.P.No. 233 of 2021
Order:

1.    Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2021, passed by the

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy

District, dismissing I.A.No.49 of 2020 in E.O.P.No.3 of 2019, filed by

the petitioner/respondent No.4, under Order VII Rule 11 read with

Section 151 CPC, to reject the Election OP filed by the respondent

No.1, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.


2.    Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

impugned order.


3.    Though the petitioner had sought for rejection of the

Election OP before the lower Court on the grounds of limitation,

locus standi and jurisdiction, but in the present Civil Revision petition,

he has focused on the aspect of limitation alone.


4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of

this Court to Rule 3(1) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj (Authority and

Manner to dispose Election Petitions in respect of Gram Panchayats,

Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads) Rules, 2018, notified

vide G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2019 dated 29.01.2019, as per which, the

Election Petition shall be presented within thirty days from the date of

declaration of the result of the Election. In this connection, learned

counsel has relied on the judgments passed by a learned Single Judge
                                    2




of this Court in Bangaru Sankaraiah vs. Talari Pothalaiah and

others1 and Vemula Srimathi vs. Bairi Srivani2.


5.       A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the lower

Court has broadly discussed on the point as to whether the petitioner

has made out any ground to reject the Election OP as required under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC.          The lower Court observed that the

limitation and locus standi are the mixed questions of fact and law,

which can be decided during the course of trial only.     Even on the

ground of jurisdiction, the lower Court held that the question of

jurisdiction can be decided as preliminary issue and none of the

grounds raised by the petitioner/respondent No.4 attract the

ingredients of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.


6.       In so far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel

for the petitioner are concerned, while in Vemula Srimathi (2 supra)

disqualification was sought on the ground of having three children,

Bangaru Sankaraiah (1 supra) was on the maintainability of the

petition for not depositing the security amount. The facts of the

present case are completely different from that of the judgments relied

upon by the petitioner.


7.       In view of the same, this Court also opines that no ground

under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been made out by the petitioner

and the impugned order needs no interference.

1 2015(4) ALT 270
2 2015(5) ALT 83
                                     3




8.    Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The lower

Court shall expedite the trial of the Election OP. Both the parties are

at liberty to raise all their objections before the lower Court during the

course of trial.


9.    As a sequel, interim stay granted on 12.03.2021 stands vacated,

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 stand disposed of.


                                         ________________________
                                          T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

27.09.2021 lur