M.N.BHANDARI, J. - (1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 22.10.2016, whereby, application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel submits that an election petition was filed under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules of 1994'). It was by invoking rule 80 of the Rules of 1994. As per rule 81 of the Rules of 1994, presentation of the election petition can be by a candidate at such election or by a person authorised by him/her in writing by the person making the petition. In the instant case, election petition has been filed by an Advocate, who was not authorised for presentation thereof. The petitioner raised objection regarding maintainability of the election petition, however, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed in ignorance of the rule 81(1) of the Rules of 1994. Reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "GV Sreerama Reddy and anr v. Returning Officer and ors", (2009) 8 SCC 736 has been given where similar issue was decided.
(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the writ petition. He submits that the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has rightly been dismissed by the court below. It is after taking into consideration rule 84 of the Rules of 1994. It permits a pleader to appear, to act or file application before the court on behalf of the person at such election. The Vakalatnama was given in favour of the Advocate who presented the election petition thus election petition has rightly been filed by the Advocate. The application submitted by the petitioner has been rightly rejected. The order impugned herein may accordingly be maintained.;