Judgment :- B. Prakash Rao, J. This appeal is at the instance of the contesting respondent in a writ petition, who seeks to assail the correctness of the orders of the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ as per orders in W.P.No.17363 of 2008, dated 12-9-2008. In brief, the facts, which, at this stage, not in dispute are that in an election conducted in the year 2006 to the Gram Panchayat the respondent No.1 herein, who is the writ petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. Challenging the same, on the ground of disqualification purportedly falling under Section 19 (3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, for having a 3rd child after the election were notified, a petition was filed in O.P.No.4 of 2006, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Naraspur, West Godavari District. After appearance by the appellant and after filing of the counter affidavit by the respondent No.1, the trial commenced. While so, an application was filed by the respondent No.1 in I.A.No.1257 of 2007 for receipt of certain documents. On being opposed, the said tribunal did not accede to the request and dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, a writ petition has been field by the respondent No.1 on the ground that such rejection is wholly impermissible, especially, on the ground of want of power, which according to the respondent No.1 can be traced to the Rule 7 of the Panchayat Raj Rules, which contemplates the trial of the suits and the process therein. These submissions were opposed on behalf of the appellant herein. However, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the scope and the ambit of the power conferred and provided for the purpose of trial under the aforesaid Rule, held that there is ample power vested in the Tribunal to receive the documents. Hence, the appeal. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended that having regard to the fact that there being no such specific provision and power conferred for receipt of documents separately, the Tribunal could not have received the documents and there is no jurisdiction. These submissions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents herein. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended that having regard to the fact that there being no such specific provision and power conferred for receipt of documents separately, the Tribunal could not have received the documents and there is no jurisdiction. These submissions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents herein. Considering these submissions and on perusal of the material, the point which boils down for consideration is as to whether on the facts and circumstances there exists any power to receive any documents during the process of trial of an election petition under the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act? Having regard to the aforesaid questions, it is not necessary to delve into the other contentions, grounds and objections raised in the pleadings in the main election petition. Suffice it to note that the election of the respondent No.1 was challenged by the appellant herein by filing an election petition and the trial commenced, at that stage, an application was filed by the respondents to receive the documents. The same was rejected on the ground that there is no power conferred under the Tribunal. However, in regard to the procedure as enunciated for the purpose of election petition, the necessary provision as rightly relied on by the learned Single Judge is Rule 7, which reads as follows: “Rule.7: (1) Every election petition shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal, as early as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the trial of suits; Provided that it shall only be necessary for the Election Tribunal to make a memorandum of the substance of evidence of any witness examined by him. (2) The Election Tribunal shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters; (a) discovery and inspection (b) enforcing the attendance of witness and requiring the deposit of their expense; (c) compelling the production of documents; (d) examining witnesses on oath; (e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and (f) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses, and may summon and examine suo motu any person whose evidence appears to him to be material.” From the above, it sufficiently borrows the procedure as applicable in the Civil Procedure Code for trial of suits. That apart, further it specifies the procedure for the purpose of discovery and inspection, enforcing the attendance of witness and requiring the deposit of their expenses, compelling the production of documents, examining witnesses on oath, reception of evidence and issuing commissions for examination of witnesses, and to summon and examine suo motu any person whose evidence appears to him to be material. These powers are comprehensive as that of a regular trial and there exist no restrictions. From the above specific incidents as provided under sub-Rule (2) of the aforesaid Rule 7 and the procedure as applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the trial of the suits made applicable, certainly it contemplates a regular enquiry with sufficient opportunity to both sides to substantiate and establish their respective cases by appropriate evidence, both oral and documentary. There is no restriction in this regard as to the mode in which such an enquiry has to be conducted nor bars any receipt of evidence, be it oral or documentary. It certainly takes in all such steps at the instances of the parties concerned in the process of trial to proceed with, which includes not only the examination of witnesses but an appreciation based on oral and documentary evidence. Incidentally, all such steps can be opted for and taken recourse to, which go as a step-in-aid in the process. Therefore, any request filed for receipt of documents is part and parcel of such an enquiry. There cannot be any inhibition in this regard to deny the opportunities to any of the parties in the process of trial for all such purposes. It is well established that Rules of procedure should be very liberally interpreted to provided equal and sufficient opportunity to both sides, which only comes to the assistance of the Court in having the entire material, both oral and documentary, on record so that the Court while disposing the cases finally will be in a position to come to apt conclusions. Any denial in this regard or refusal thereto would not only amount to a denial of opportunity to the parties, and denying the Court itself an opportunity to consider all such material, having a relevant bearing on the questions in controversy. Therefore, the aforesaid provision would amply clothes the Court the power to receive the documents. Any denial in this regard or refusal thereto would not only amount to a denial of opportunity to the parties, and denying the Court itself an opportunity to consider all such material, having a relevant bearing on the questions in controversy. Therefore, the aforesaid provision would amply clothes the Court the power to receive the documents. In this appeal and also before the learned Single Judge reliance was placed by the appellant on the decisions in Kummari Ramulu v. Gangaram Penta Reddy & Others 2004 (3) ALT 788 (D.B) and Challa Satyanarayana v. Tadi Lakshmana Rao & Others 2008 (1) ALT 435 where the questions was about the power to amend and implead. Since these questions are not involved in the present case and leaving open the same to be considered in appropriate case, we do not delve into it. The power to amend and implead differ from the power to receive documents on record. As discussed above, this power is an incidental to and fall well within the situation contemplated under the above Rule 7. Having regard to the specific situation and circumstances in those two cases it would not have any application to the case on hand. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.