JUDGMENT : P. Sree Sudha, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed in Election O.P. No. 2 of 2020 on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’), filed under Section 71 to 80 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) r/w the A.P. Municipal Corporations (Conduct of Election of Members) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules’) for declaring the respondent No.4 as not eligible to contest as ward member/corporator at Ward No. 77, Jambagh Division, as per Section 21-B of GHMC Act, 1955; also to declare the election of respondent No.4 as null and void in view of Section 79(2)(d) of the GHMC Act, 1955 with a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to recount the total votes polled at ward No.77 in the presence of appellant and respondent No.4. 2. The Appellant herein is the petitioner in the aforesaid Election O.P. No.2 of 2020 filed under Section 71 to 80 of Act, 1955. Case of the Appellant: 3. The case of the appellant in brief is that, he had contested in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Elections, 2020 held on 01.12.2020 for Ward No. 77, for the post of ward member/corporator from All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen, (A.I.M.I.M.) political party along with the respondents Nos.4 to 16. 4. The appellant contended that, in the underlying election affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 before the respondent No. 2, he had declared that he got two dependents other than spouse, which was challenged by him in the aforesaid Election O.P. 5. It is further case of the appellant that, the respondent No.4 has suppressed the material facts before the respondent No.2 about the fact that he having three children i.e. one male child namely Mr. Aakash Jaiswal born on 13.02.1987, and two female children viz., Ms. Aakriti Jaiswal born on 09.01.1990, and Ms. Srijitha Jaiswal born on 14.04.1996 which is in violation of Section 21-B of the Act, therefore he shall not be liable for continuing to be a member of the Ward and to be disqualified. 6. Aakash Jaiswal born on 13.02.1987, and two female children viz., Ms. Aakriti Jaiswal born on 09.01.1990, and Ms. Srijitha Jaiswal born on 14.04.1996 which is in violation of Section 21-B of the Act, therefore he shall not be liable for continuing to be a member of the Ward and to be disqualified. 6. The appellant contended that, the respondent No.4 intentionally and wantonly suppressed the fact about of he having the three children in order to get elected, thereby, the election of the respondent No 4 is liable to be declared as void under Section 79 (2) (d) of the Act. 7. Appellant also contends that, he seriously apprehends that the counting of the votes was done in most partial manner and when same was questioned before the respondent No.2, respondent authorities failed to accede to the request for recounting and proceeded to declare the respondent No. 4 as returned candidate. Case of the Respondent No.2: 8. It is the case of the respondent authorities, that the respondent No.2 has acted in a fair and transparent manner as the entire counting process was done under CCTV surveillance and conducted the election without deviating from any Rules and guidelines as given by the respondent No.1. 9. It is contented on behalf of the respondent No.2 that, the appellant has never raised any objection regarding dis- qualification of any of the contesting candidate during the election process till the announcement of results. It is also contended that the copies of the nomination papers filed by each candidate were displayed on the notice board in the office of the respondent No.2 and the same were also uploaded in the TSEC website. And no objection was made either by the appellant or his election agent at the time of nominations or requested the respondent No.2 to examine any nomination paper of respondent No.4. Case of the Respondent No.4: 10. The case of respondent No.4 is that, the appellant has approached the Court with unclean hands, as he has two election ID cards, and a PAN card which shows different date of birth that possessing two election ID cards is against the law and such suppression of fact and giving wrong declarations to the government and authorities makes the appellant liable for punishment and also disqualification. 11. 11. Respondent No.4 further contended that, the appellant has no cause of action to maintain the Election O.P. since, the appellant has neither obtained permission from A.I.M.I.M. Party to prove that the said Party has nominated him, nor the A.I.M.I.M. Party is made party to the underlying O.P. Thus, the underlying petition is bad for non-joinder of the parties. Consideration by Trial Court: 12. Basing on the respective contentions the trial Court, had framed the following issues for consideration: - i. Whether the respondent No.4 has three children, and therefore liable to be disqualified under Section 21-B of the GHMC Act? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order declaring the election of the respondent No.4 for Ward No.77 of Jambagh Division, GHMC limits, as null and void? iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order of declaring the election as a whole as void? 13. Before the trial Court, the appellant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked his Exs.P-1 to P-14, whereas the Ex.P- 15 is marked in confrontation with the RW-1 i.e. respondent No.4. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws-1 to 6 examined and no documents marked. The trial Court basing on the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides and having regard to the points for consideration had observed as under: I. The documents relevant for ascertaining the facts of the case would be the Birth Certificate of Ms. Aakriti Jaiswal who is alleged to be the third child of respondent No.4 marked as Ex.P-8; ii) the Original Voter Identity Card of Ms. Aakriti Jaiswal marked as Ex.P-12, iii) Original Memorandum of Marks issued by SSC Board of Ms. Aakriti Jaiswal marked as Ex.P-14 and iv) Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated 04.08.2010 marked as Ex.P-15. II. With regard to Ex.P-8 the trial Court noted its findings as under: a) Para 42 . …Exhibit P8 shows the respondent No.4 and RW6 as the parents. In order to dispute the genuineness of Exhibit P8, the counsel for Respondent No.4 produced another sample birth certificate obtained from mee-seva (Exhibit P8 also issued by mee-seva) to demonstrate that the symbols present on a original certificate issued by mee-seva are differently placed as compared to the symbols, which are found on Exhibit P8. In order to dispute the genuineness of Exhibit P8, the counsel for Respondent No.4 produced another sample birth certificate obtained from mee-seva (Exhibit P8 also issued by mee-seva) to demonstrate that the symbols present on a original certificate issued by mee-seva are differently placed as compared to the symbols, which are found on Exhibit P8. b) ….The petitioner herein as PW1 denied knowledge about where he has obtained Exhibits P7 to P9, which contains Exhibit P8 purporting to be birth certificate of Aakriti Jaiswal alleged to be daughter of Respondent No.4. In spite of confronting Exhibits P7 to P9, the petitioner declined to state from which mee-seva center Exhibits P7 to P9 are obtained. c) The petitioner categorically declined to examine any of the G.H.M.C. officials to prove the contents of Exhibit P8 as genuine. d) Para 48 ….both the parties have made use of internet connection in open Court to demonstrate the truthfulness of Exhibit P8 by opening different sites of G.H.M.C. One site opened by the petitioner showed the information furnished with respect to birth of Aakriti Jaiswal and the parents being Rakesh Jaiswal (Respondent No.4) and Veena Jaiswal. While so, the Respondent No.4 demonstrated that Exhibit P8 does not exist on the website for the registration number available on Exhibit P8 …again the burden is cast on the petitioner to prove beyond reasonable doubt the contents of Exhibit P8. e) In this regard, it is relevant to refer to judgment reported in 2002 (6) ALD 227 in the case between P.Aruna Devi Vs. Election Authority-cum-Commissioner, Adoni Municipality and Others , for the legal ratio that "In the trial of an election petition, the burden of proving corrupt practices by the candidate or his agents lies heavily upon the petitioner and the same has to be proved not by mere preponderance of probability, but by cogent and reliable evidence beyond any reasonable doubt failing which the petition must fail." f) … Thus, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner failed to prove the contents of Exhibit P8 beyond reasonable doubt. III. With regard to Ex.P-12 the trial Court noted its findings as under: a) Para 43 . III. With regard to Ex.P-12 the trial Court noted its findings as under: a) Para 43 . …Exhibit P12 shows the name of Rakesh Jaiswal (Respondent No.4) as father and the address on Exhibit P12 is the address of Respondent No.4.….In this regard, a question arises as to how and in what manner, the petitioner would get possession of Voter Identity Card belonging to any person including Aakriti Jaiswal. …. In normal circumstances, it is highly improbable for any third person to get possession of original Voter Identity Card pertaining to any third party. b) Therefore, a genuine doubt arises as to how and in what manner the petitioner was able to get possession of Exhibit P12. When questioned about the same, when questioned about the contents of Exhibit P12, when suggested that Exhibit P12 is a fabricated document, the petitioner as PW1 has denied the suggestion. but categorically declined to examine the Election Authorities to prove the genuineness of Exhibit P12. c) In fact, the petitioner deposed that he has no knowledge whether Exhibit P12 would be found to be in the Electoral Rolls of Respondent No.2. Thus, the petitioner failed to establish the genuineness of contents of Exhibit P12 with any amount of credibility. d) Para 49 …There is no convincing explanation from the petitioner as to how Exhibit P12 came into his possession. Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot prove his case by deposing to the effect that he does not have knowledge as to whether Exhibit P12 is present in the Electoral Rolls of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. e) The petitioner cannot produce a document before an Election Tribunal at the first instance and then depose he does not know about the existence of said document in the concerned public office subsequently. Thus, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that Exhibit P12 is also not proven beyond reasonable doubt. IV. With regard to Ex.P-14 the trial Court noted its findings as under: a) Para 44 . …The Exhibit P14 is an original document issued on 26.03.2021 i.e., much after the declaration of result in G.H.M.C. elections on 04.12.2020. Exhibit P14 does not contain the name of Respondent No.4. b) Further, the petitioner declined to divulge the identity of the person who issued Exhibit P14... …The Exhibit P14 is an original document issued on 26.03.2021 i.e., much after the declaration of result in G.H.M.C. elections on 04.12.2020. Exhibit P14 does not contain the name of Respondent No.4. b) Further, the petitioner declined to divulge the identity of the person who issued Exhibit P14... The petitioner not only refused to examine any witness to prove the contents of Exhibit P14, but also declined to examine any staff of Rosary Convent School to prove that the person by name Aakriti Jaiswal is the daughter of Respondent No.4. V. With regard to Ex.P-15 the trial Court noted its findings as under: a) Para 45 . …The Respondent No.4 as RW1 admitted having purchased his residential property through said document but deposed that the Page No.18 is fabricated….When confronted with Exhibit P15 suddenly the Respondent No.4 admitted the document, the photographs and having purchased the residential property in the name of his wife and himself. b) When confronted with Page No.18 of Exhibit P15 i.e., copy of Ration Card allegedly submitted by the Respondent No.4 himself to the Registration Authorities, the Respondent No.4 denied the same. In this regard, again the petitioner declined to examine any witness to prove the contents of Exhibit P15. c) Para 54 . …the counsel for Respondent No.4 produced the original of registered sale deed Exhibit P15 in open Court, coupled with the certified copy obtained subsequent to the certified copy marked under Exhibit P15. …the Counsel for Respondent No.4 challenged the genuineness of contents of Exhibit P15, more particularly, Page No.18 alleging that the same is a fabricated document… d) When perused, the original registered sale deed dated 04.08.2010 bearing document No.2256 of 2010 at Page No.18 contains the copies of Voter Election Identity Cards of Respondent No.4 and his wife Veena Jaiswal, but not the copy of Ration Card of Respondent No.4 as produced under Exhibit P15. e) Para 57 ….The counsel for petitioner did not give consent for marking of the original registered sale deed dated 04.08.2010 bearing document No.2256 of 2010 for being considered to ascertain the truth. f) Para 58 . e) Para 57 ….The counsel for petitioner did not give consent for marking of the original registered sale deed dated 04.08.2010 bearing document No.2256 of 2010 for being considered to ascertain the truth. f) Para 58 . A strange situation is, there is a certified copy of Exhibit P15 issued by the Sub-Registrar Office on 15.12.2021 showing Page No.18 with a copy of the Respondent No.4...There is yet another certified copy issued by the Sub-Registrar Office, obtained by the counsel for Respondent No.4 on 12.11.2021, which shows that the Page No.18 contains the copies of Voter Identity Cards of Respondent No.4 and his wife. Ideally, the official who issued Exhibit P15 and the certified copy to the Respondent No.4 should have been examined by summoning documents from the Sub-Registrar's Office, to prove whether the contents of Exhibit P15 are genuine… g) Without such evidence, this Tribunal cannot decide whether Exhibit P15 is a genuine document or the document produced by the Respondent No.4 in the form of original registered sale deed and the corresponding certified copy are genuine. VI. The trial Court by recording its finding as above had held that, the petitioner failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the contents of Ex.P-8, P12, P14 and P15. As such, failed to prove that the Respondent No.4 has three children, and therefore, 1 1 attracts disqualification under Section 21-B and Sections 71 to 80 of the G.H.M.C. Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of relief of declaring the Respondent No.4 as ineligible to contest the G.H.M.C. elections and accordingly dismissed the O.P. 14. Heard, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondents, and perused the record. Considerations by this Court: 15. Though, the appellant filed the underlying O.P and the present appeal on various grounds, however at the time of hearing of the present appeal, has confined his challenge only to the issue of the respondent No.4 having three children, thereby attracting disqualification rendering his election as being in violation to the Section 21-B of the Act. 16. Though, the appellant filed the underlying O.P and the present appeal on various grounds, however at the time of hearing of the present appeal, has confined his challenge only to the issue of the respondent No.4 having three children, thereby attracting disqualification rendering his election as being in violation to the Section 21-B of the Act. 16. As pleaded, the fulcrum of the case of the appellant before the trial court and before this court is that the respondent No.4 has more than two children thereby attracting disqualification to contest as ward member/corporator, thereby has to be disqualified under the Act, with a consequential relief to declare the appellant as the elected ward member or returned candidate. 17. As noted by the trial Court the sheet anchor for the case of the appellant are four documents marked as Ex.P-8, P12, P14 and P15. 18. It is to be noted that, when a prima facie objection is raised as to the effect that Ex.P-8 i.e. original birth certificate of Ms.Aakriti Jaiswal is a fabricated document and the mee-seva certificate issued by G.H.M.C. have a different pattern of placement of symbols as compared to Exs.P-7 to 9 produced by the appellant, the trial Court rightly observed that the onus shifts to appellant to prove the contents of Ex.P-8. 19. It is to be noted that, the Ex.P-8 which is a public document and where its contents are disputed as false and fabricated the first step in order to prove the document, is by stating source of from where the appellant has obtained the said certificate, secondly, by examining the concerned authority who could vouchsafe as to the genuineness of the cetificate. In the facts of the present case, as noted by the trial Court, the appellant having categorially declined to examine any of the GHMC officials to prove the contents of the Ex.P-8 as genuine, no reliance can be placed, since, the burden lies on the appellant/petitioner to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, which the appellant/petitioner herein has failed. 20. Similarly, with regard to Ex.P-12, it is the Voter ID card belonging to Ms.Aakriti Jaiswal who is the alleged third child of the respondent No.4. The trial Court had categorically noted as to how petitioner could gain entry into the house of the respondent No.4 to secure possession of Ex.P-12. 20. Similarly, with regard to Ex.P-12, it is the Voter ID card belonging to Ms.Aakriti Jaiswal who is the alleged third child of the respondent No.4. The trial Court had categorically noted as to how petitioner could gain entry into the house of the respondent No.4 to secure possession of Ex.P-12. In absence of the appellant providing the satisfactory explanation as to possession of the Ex.P-12 by him and also declining to examine any of the election authority to prove the genuineness of Ex.P- 12, it cannot be said that genuineness and contents of the document is established beyond reasonable doubt for it to be accepted. 21. Insofar as Ex.P-14 is concerned which is memorandum of marks of Ms.Aakriti Jaiswal, the same does not show the name of the respondent No.4 who is alleged to be the father of the student. Further the refusal of the appellant to examine any witness to prove the contents of Ex.P-14 and also the staff of the school where the student to whom the said memo belongs to in order to prove that the said student is the daughter of respondent No.4, no credence can be placed on the said document. 22. Though on behalf of the appellant, it is contended that Ex.P- 15 which is confronted to respondent No.4 in his cross examination particularly ‘page 18’ which is copy of ration card filed as ID proof for registration, clinchingly shows he having three children, the respondent No.4 by producing the original of the said document before the trial Court contended that, the Page 18 contains the copies of Voter Election Identity card of respondent No.4 and his wife, but not the copy of the ration card as claimed by the appellant, thus, Ex.P-15 is fabricated document, and called upon the appellant/petitioner to come forward to marking of the original of Ex.P-15 which is refused by the appellant. 23. 23. The Court below by taking note of the said situation with regard to Ex.P-15, had noted that since the respondent No.4 by producing the original document had claimed the Ex.P-15 particularly as fabricated it is for the appellant/petitioner to take appropriate steps to examine the staff of sub-registrar office to prove the contents of Ex.P-15 in regard to page 18, held that the trial Court cannot decide whether the Ex.P-15 as produced by appellant is genuine/original document by respondent No.4 and thus, held that Ex.P-15 of page 18 to be a questionable document, therefore it is not relevant for considering the case of the appellant. 24. Though, the counsel vehemently contended that the trial Court ought to have considered the aforesaid documents when examined, with reference to the cross-examination of appellant/petitioner, the same would demonstrate that, the appellant except marking the documents as Ex.P-8, P12, P14 and P15, did not prove to examine any concerned authorities in order to prove the genuineness and correctness of the documents. It is trite law that mere production and marking of documents as exhibits cannot be a due proof of its contents. (See: Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and others , [2003 AIR SC 5861] and Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar and others , [22023 13 SCC 563] 25. Further, the claim of the appellant/petitioner that Ex.P-8, P12, P14 and P15 are public documents, and are to be accepted, it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust of India , [1982 SCC OnLine Bom 148] (speaking through his lordship S.P. Bharucha as his Lordship then was) wherein referring to its earlier decision in C.H. Shah v. S.S. Malpathak , [1972 Mh. LJ 816] it was held as under: “14. …The Court was concerned with deciding whether the original of a public document has to be proved in the same manner as any other document. A consideration of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act clearly showed the Court that the only difference which the Act made between public and private documents was in regard to the form of secondary evidence which is admissible, viz., a certified copy, and in regard to the presumption of the genuineness of the certified copy; in all other respects no distinction was drawn by the Act between public and private documents.” 26. Similarly, it is also to be noted that the authenticity of the entries recorded in the school records would depend on whose information such entries stood recorded and on its source. However, in the present case the appellant did not choose to examine any person from Rosary Convent School, where the Aakrithi was claimed to have studied and appeared for Board exam, to prove the genuineness or otherwise of Ex.P-14 i.e. Memorandum of Marks of Aakriti Jaiswal. 27. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh and others v. Rajni Kant and Another has held that: 20. So far as the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the court has a right to examine their probative value. The authenticity of the entries would depend on whose information such entries stood recorded and what was his source of information. The entries in school register/school leaving certificate require to be proved in accordance with law and the standard of proof required in such cases remained the same as in any other civil or criminal cases. 28. The appellant except getting the aforesaid document marked, despite being called upon by the trail Court, did not choose to examine any of the concerned issuing authorities in order to prove the genuineness of the said document, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot claim that he having proved that the respondent No.4 having more than two children, thus attracting disqualification as per the Act and the Court below having erred in dismissing the O.P. Thus, the contention of the appellant on this ground has to fail. 29. Insofar, as the prayer to declare appellant/petitioner as returned candidate is concerned, mere declaration of respondent No.4 as attracting disqualification would not entitle him to be declared as the returned candidate as held by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Khandre v. Dr. Vijaya Kumar Khandre, AIR 2002 SC 2345 that: 14. However, in an election where elected candidate is declared to be disqualified to contest election and there are more than two candidates contesting election, there is no specific provision under the Act under which the person who has secured the next highest number of votes could be declared as elected. Vijaya Kumar Khandre, AIR 2002 SC 2345 that: 14. However, in an election where elected candidate is declared to be disqualified to contest election and there are more than two candidates contesting election, there is no specific provision under the Act under which the person who has secured the next highest number of votes could be declared as elected. The Act is silent on this point. Further, it cannot be presumed that the votes secured by the disqualified elected candidates would have been wasted or would have been secured by the next candidate who has secured more votes. If disqualified candidate was not permitted to contest the election, then how the voters would have voted in favour of the candidate who has secured more votes than other remaining candidates would be a question in the realm of speculation and unpredictability. In such a situation, declaring the election of the returned candidate on the ground of his initial disqualification to contest the election by itself would not entitle the election appellant or any other candidate to be declared elected. 30. The trial Court by placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in G.Vanaja G Shivajyothi vs V Bhanumati and others , [ 2012 (6) ALD 759 ] held that the declaration of petitioner as elected candidate is not possible even if in case it is proved that respondent No.4 is ineligible. 31. It is pertinent to note that in the underlying O.P. the appellant/petitioner had sought for declaring the respondent No.4 as not eligible to contest as ward member/corporator, with a consequential direction to declare his election as ward member/corporator and to declare the appellant/petitioner as elected ward member/corporator at Ward No.77, Jambagh Division, GHMC Limits. However, since the appellant/petitioner had failed to establish the factum of respondent No.4 attracting disqualification in terms of Section 21-B of the Act, this Court is of the view that the appellant/petitioner is not entitled for being granted any relief. 32. However, since the appellant/petitioner had failed to establish the factum of respondent No.4 attracting disqualification in terms of Section 21-B of the Act, this Court is of the view that the appellant/petitioner is not entitled for being granted any relief. 32. Having regard to the law as enunciated by the Apex Court and other High Courts to the facts of the present case of the appellant, it can safely be held that the appellant had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the contents of Ex.P-8, P12, P14 and P15 for him to succeed in the O.P by demonstrating that RW4 having three children thereby attracting disqualification under Section 21-B and Section 71 to 80 of the Act. 33. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court in dismissing the underlying O.P. does not suffer from any infirmity or error for being interfered by this Court in the present appeal. 34. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merit and thus, dismissed. 35. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.