SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of the order dated 19.1.16 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur District, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner herein under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Order 27, Rule 5A, Section 79, Order 1, Rule 9 CPC and Rule 85 and 86 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short "Rules of 1994"), stands rejected.
(2.) The respondent has filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal, questioning the election of the petitioner herein on the ground that at the time of contesting the election, the returned candidate was not holding the requisite academic qualification and the certificate of academic qualification Class VIII produced on his behalf was forged document. The petitioner preferred an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that since the District Election Officer has been impleaded as party respondent in the election petition, by virtue of Order 27, Rule 5A CPC, the petition filed against the public officer in respect of an act alleged to have been done by him in his official capacity, without impleading the Government as party to the petition, is not maintainable.
(3.) The application has been rejected by the Election Tribunal observing that the Election Officer has been impleaded as party to the election petition without there being any allegation against him. The court observed that the matter with regard to parties to the election petition is governed by Rule 83 of the Rules of 1994, which makes the provision as to who will be made respondent to the petition and further that as per the provisions of Rule 85, the procedure provided under the CPC in regard to the suit is required to be followed in so far as it can be made applicable and thus, the State Government being not the necessary party, the election petition cannot be rejected.;