Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the elected Sarpanch assailing judgment of Election Tribunal dt. 24.11.2012 setting aside her election. As it reveals from the record that the petitioner & respondent No. 2 filed their nomination and contested election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dayarampura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur & the petitioner was declared elected Sarpanch and that was assailed by respondent No. 2 being defeated candidate by filing election petition before the election tribunal and one of the plea raised was that the petitioner (return candidate) was holding pre -disqualification of having more than two children as on the cut off date i.e. 27.11.1995 as was disqualify to contest the election and fill the nomination form. After reply came to be filed, in para 6 the petitioner also admitted this fact that she was having three children but her defence was that her first child was given in adoption to Smt. Birdhi Devi wife of late Laxminarain Meena as such had two children born on 15.1.1987 & 15.2.1992, however, the learned Election Tribunal after the parties lead evidence recorded finding of fact holding that the petitioner had three children from wedlock & their date of birth of Neetu Meena was 15.2.1992 (Ex.1); Hemraj 2.1.1996 (Ex.2) and Sita Meena, 1.7.1998 (Ex. 3) indisputably the petitioner is having three children after cut off date which was 27.11.1995 and this being a pre -disqualification which she carried on the date of submission of nomination form her election was set aside by the election tribunal vide impugned judgment dt. 24.11.2012.
(2.) MAIN thrust of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was having only two children from her wedlock and one who was given in adoption was from the earlier wife as such she was not holding any pre disqualification but what is being contended by the petitioner was based on amendment which she intended after filing written statement under Order 6 R. 17 CPC which was disallowed by the learned tribunal and accordingly the learned tribunal was supposed to proceed on the basis of pleadings on record and particularly the written statement. As regards, written statement and other material which has come on record finding of fact was recorded by the learned tribunal regarding three children born to the petitioner after 27.11.1995 and this being finding of fact and no contrary material is placed on record by the petitioner in rebuttal even before this Court.
(3.) AFTER going through the judgment impugned, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned tribunal in passing the impugned judgment which may require interference. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.;