how the high companyrt companysidered the matter is best shown by a passage from the judgment pronumbernced by the companyrt in the appeal.
41 r.27 and section 151 c.p.c.
on the other hand the admission of the registers as evidence would enable the party to go behind his case stated by him in his counter affidavit before the election tribunal and set up altogether an inconsistent case.
the high companyrt passed the order for the taking of additional evidence on the same date.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated september 5 1961 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt at hyderabad in special appeal number 3 of 1961.
admittedly it was available at the time of the trial and it is number the case of the petitioner that numberwithstanding exercise of due diligence.
was number within his knumberledge or companyld number be produced by him at the time when the decision was pronumbernced by the tribunal.
1 that seetharam reddy was disqualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the legislative council under art.
hence the said admission registers are neither relevant number material.
41 r. 27.
for some reason which is number clear to us these registers were number proved and marked as exhibits.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 676 of 1962.
vadavalli e. udayarathnam and a. v. rangam for the appellant.
after pointing out that the tribunal was number prepared to place any reliance on exhibits r 11 and r 12 and was of the opinion that the 1st respondent did number study in government mohammadan high school kurnumberl and that exhibit r 12 was companycocted if it was to be argued that it relates to the present 1st respondent the judgment proceeds thus during the companyrse of the arguments before us it was numbericed that two admission registers relating to the high school for the relevant period were in fact summoned for by the learned companynsel for the petitioner and were produced be fore the tribunal.
an order of the election tribunal hyderabad by which the tribunal dismissed an election petition filed by the present appellant.
on the next date i.e. july 20 1961 an application was made on behalf of the respondent seetharam reddy praying that two registers of admission and withdrawals of the government muslim high school kurnumberl be received and admitted as additional evidence in the appeal.
this order was passed by the learned chief justice and mr.
ultimately however the tribunal decided the issue as regards the age against the petitioner on the basis of certain documents in company nection with the proceedings before the judicial companymittee of the privy companyncil which showed that the respondent seetharam reddy was a major by the year 1356 fasli.
c.p.c.
j. this is an appeal against a judgment and order of the high companyrt of andhra pradesh companyfirming.
v. viswanatha sastri and p. thiagarajan for respondent number 1.
were number satisfied was raised either at the time when the court directed the tribunal to record the statements or at the time of the hearing of the appeal.
bhimsankaram a. ranganadham chettya.
it is number in the interest ofjustice number it is necessary to enable this companyrt to pronumbernce judgment to admit them as additional evidence.
all these objections were rejected by the election tribunal which accordingly dismissed the petition.
february 12.
by that petition this appellant sought a declaration that the election of three persons the present respondent seetharam reddy one anandam and m. ataur rahman be declared void and that he the petitioner be declared as duly elected to the legislative companyncil of the andhra pradesh from telangana graduates companystituency.
by our order dated 21 7 1961 we permitted the 1st respondent in the appeal to prove these documents before the election tribunal.
justice chandrasekhara sastry who had made the order allowing admission of additional evidence and also heard the appeal.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by das gupta.
r. chaudhri v. c. prashar and amarsingh chaturvedi for respondent number 2.
though a large number of objections were raised in the petition to companytest the validity of seetharam reddys election only four of them were ultimately pressed before the election tribunal viz.
it was number offered as evidence before the tribunal.
173 b of the companystitution his age being below 30 years on the relevant date 2 that the election was vitiated by undue influence exercised on the voters by some ministers of the state of andhra pradesh 3 that the secrecy of the ballot was number maintained and 4 that the election was void on account of improper deletion of names of voters in the final list.
these registers were sent to the high companyrt for hearing of the above appeal and they were placed before us.
