JUDGMENT Srivastava , J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were candidates for election to the Municipal Board of Jaunpur. The petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 were duly declared elected. The respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 6 then jointly filed an election petition challenging the validity of the election of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. A court fee of Rs. 125 was paid in respect of the petition under Cl. (a) of Article 22 of the 2nd Schedule of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended subsequently. A sum of Rs. 100 was also deposited as security in respect of the petition under the rules framed under Section 22 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The respondent No. 7 the District Judge of Jaunpur was the Election Tribunal before whom the election petition came up for trial. He passed an order permitting the respondent No. 6 to be transposed from the array of petitioners to the array of the respondents. The election petition therefore proceeded only on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The respondents Nos. 2, 3, and the petitioners raised two preliminary objections. They contended that as the election petition questioned the validity of the election of three persons, it should be treated for the purpose of court-fee and deposit of security as three petitions in one. They contended that it was necessary for the respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 375 as court-fee and also to deposit Rs. 300 by way of security. As they had not done. so, the election petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was incompetent. These preliminary objections were overruled by the respondent No. 7, the Election Tribunal and by the present petitioner questions the validity of the order overruling the preliminary objections. 2. The relevant provisions of law on which the questions raised have to be decided may now be referred to. Sec. 22 of the U.P. Municipalities Act reads like this : "22(1) An election petition shall be heard by a Tribunal consisting of one or more civil judicial officers appointed by the State Government in this behalf and at a place in the district within which the municipality is situated. Sec. 22 of the U.P. Municipalities Act reads like this : "22(1) An election petition shall be heard by a Tribunal consisting of one or more civil judicial officers appointed by the State Government in this behalf and at a place in the district within which the municipality is situated. (2) An election petition may be presented to the Tribunal or where a Tribunal has not been appointed, to the Collector of the District within which the municipality is situated : Provided that the petition or application shall not be entertained by the Tribunal or the Collector, as the case may be, unless it is accompanied by a treasury challan to show that the amount of the necessary security prescribed in the rules has been deposited." 3. The rule framed with reference to Section 22 is to be found in Notification No. 1049-M.E./X1-4-49 dated September 5, 1949 as amended by Notification No. 17232/XI-A-889-1953 dated November 2, 1953 published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary of the same date. It reads like this : "The amount of security deposit for the costs of an election petition or application filed under sub-sec. (2) of Section 22 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act II of 1916), shall be Rs. 100." Cl. (a) of Article 22 of Schedule II to the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh is as follows:- "22 Election petition questioning the election of any person. (a) As a member of a local Board other than a Notified or Town Area Committee. 100." Cl. (a) of Article 22 of Schedule II to the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh is as follows:- "22 Election petition questioning the election of any person. (a) As a member of a local Board other than a Notified or Town Area Committee. One hundred twenty-five rupees." Sec. 23 of the Act then provides:- "23(1) Except so far as may be otherwise provided by the Act or by rule, the procedure provided in the Civil Procedure Code in regard to suits, shall so far as it is not inconsistent with this Act or any rule and so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in the hearing of election petitions : (2) Provided that:- (a) two or more persons whose election is called in question may be made respondents to the same petition, and their cases may be tried at the same time, and any two or more election petitions may be heard together but, so far as is consistent with such joint trial or hearing, the petition shall be deemed to be a separate petition against each respondent; (b) the (Election Tribunal) shall not be required to record or have recorded the evidence in full, but shall make a memorandum of the evidence sufficient in its opinion for the purpose of deciding the case; (c) the (Election Tribunal) may, at any stage of the proceedings required the petitioner to give further security for the payment of all costs incurred or likely to be incurred by any respondent; (d) the (Election Tribunal) for the propose of deciding any issue, shall only be bound to require the production of, or to receive, so much evidence, oral or documentary, as it considers necessary; (e) during the hearing of the case, the (Election Tribunal) may refer a question of law to the High Court under Order XLVI of the first Schedule of C.P.C. but there shall be no appeal either on a question of law or fact, and no application in revision against or in respect of the decision of the (Election Tribunal); (f) any person considering himself aggrieved by the decision may apply for review to the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the decision and the Tribunal may thereupon review the decision on any point: Provided that in computing the period of limitation the provision of sub-sec. (2) or Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, shall apply." 4. So far as the question of court-fee is concerned, the election petition being one only a court fee of Rs. 125 could be required to be paid and it has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not necessary to pay Rs. 375 as fee necessary for three petitions. 5. Relying, however, on the last few words of the first proviso to Section 23, learned counsel urged that there being three respondents to the petition whose election was being challenged the petition was to be taken to be three petitions in one and as security is required to be deposited for meeting costs of the respondents to the election petition it was necessary for the respondent No. 1 to deposit Rs. 300 as security and the deposit of Rs. 100 on that account could not be held to be sufficient. 6. The contention, cannot in our opinion be accepted. The deposit of security is a condition precedent for the entertainment of the election petition and as laid down in the proviso to Cl. (2) of Section 22, the petition cannot be entertained till security is deposited. The deposit of security has nothing to do with the trial of the petition. According to the rule framed with reference to Section 22 a sum of Rs. 100 has to be deposited as security in respect of an election petition. In the present case respondent No. 1 had filed a single election petition. He could not therefore be required to deposit three sums of Rs. 100 simply because the election of three respondents was being challenged in that petition. According to the rule for each election petition a sum of Rs. 100 has to be deposited and as only one election petition had been filed, the respondent No. 1 could be required to deposit only a sum of Rs. 100. 7. The first clause of Section 23 provides for the procedure which is to be followed in deciding the election petitions and lays down that the procedure provided in C.P.C. in regard to suits shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the Act and the rules and so far as it can be made applicable be followed in the hearing of the election petitions. Sub-Sec. (2) of Section 23 contains several provisos to the rule laid down in sub-sec. (1). All these provisos must therefore be held to have been enacted with reference to the procedure which is to be followed at the hearing of all election petitions. The first proviso permits the election of two or more persons to be questioned by a single petition. It also permits two or more petitions to be tried jointly at the same time. Then it lays down that: "So far as is consistent with the joint trial of hearing, the petition shall be deemed to be separate petition against each respondent." These words refer, in our opinion, to the trial or hearing of the petition alone and give a direction to the Election Tribunal to hear the petition in such manner that though it is a single petition against several persons the case of each respondent is considered separately and no confusion is created by the fact that several petitions are being tried jointly or that the election of several persons is being questioned in the same petition. The last words of this proviso which have been relied upon by the petitioner do not relate to the initial stage in which the petition has to be filed or entertained and on the basis of these words, therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention that three different sums of Rs. 100 should have been deposited in the present case by the respondent no. 1. 8. The view we are taking is in consonance with what was laid down by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member in the case of Rajendrapal v. H. N. Kapoor, 1960 ALJ 338. It was urged that as the case of Rajendrapal was decided on merits also, the observations made on the question of court-fee or security deposit were obiter. Even if it be conceded for the sake of argument that that was so, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that the observations made were not correct. If we may say so with respect, we are in entire agreement with those observations and find no good ground for not following the same. 9. The sole point urged in support of the petition is therefore untenable and the petition must fail. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. If we may say so with respect, we are in entire agreement with those observations and find no good ground for not following the same. 9. The sole point urged in support of the petition is therefore untenable and the petition must fail. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. The stay order is discharged.