Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.C. Verma Learned Counsel for the Petitioner who is the elected pradhan of Gram Panchayat Botham. He submits that the election petition filed by the Respondent No. 3 is not in consonance with the provisions of Order 4 Rule 1, CP.C. inasmuch as, the duplicate copy of the petition was not filed when the same was presented. An application was moved by the Petitioner contesting the said position and a separate application under Order 7 Rule 11 was also filed for rejecting the election petition. The said application has been dismissed holding that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply in election petitions which are governed by Section 12 -C of the Uttar pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
(2.) SRI Verma submits that this approach is absolutely erroneous and the prescribed authority as well as the revising authority have both erred by ignoring the provisions of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Election Dispute Rules, 1994. He further contends that order 7 Rule 11 contemplates the rejection of a plaint even on such a ground namely, non submission of duplicate copy of plaint, and hence the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. Sri Verma has further relied on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Brij Pal Singh v. Additional District and Session Judge (fast Track Court No. 4), Saharnpur : 2002 (5) AWC 3500 to advance his submissions.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 with the help of the document filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition submits that the duplicate copy of the petition had been filed along with the original election petition, yet the Petitioner has taken a plea which is against the facts on record. It is therefore submitted that even on facts the contention raised by the Petitioner is not correct as a duplicate copy of the election petition had been filed at the time of its presentation.;