JUDGMENT B. Dayal, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which has been referred to Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court because he considered the point involved to be rather of importance and of frequent occurrence. 2. The question raised in this petition is whether under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act an election petition can be filed to challenge the election of more than one successful candidates. The point arose in connection with the elections of Gaon Panchayat Lamtauri in the district of Mathura. In this election 8 persons were to be elected and about 30 candidates contested those 8 seats. The voting took place on the 25th of February, 1961 and counting of votes in these elections was by show of hands for each candidate. The returning officer had to count votes for each candidate and had to announce the result immediately. Election agents and other candidates were also permitted to check and object, if necessary, after the counting had taken place. In respect of all the candidates, the returning officer had to send the return to other authorities and results were to be announced later declaring those who obtained highest number of votes as elected. On the basis of voting that took place on the 25th of February, 1961 respondents nos. 2 to 9 were declared elected. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 who were also candidates to the election and who had not been elected, filed an election petition before the Tribunal. To this petition all the eight successful candidates were made parties and the election of all the eight successful candidates was challenged on the ground that in the case of each of those eight candidates votes received by them were wrongly noted and that the eight petitioners had in fact received larger votes than the eight candidates who were declared successful and elected and that the list which was prepared at the time of election showing votes received by each candidate, was subsequently interfered with and thus the election of all the returned candidates was sought to be set aside. It was also prayed that either fresh elections be ordered to the petitioners be declared to have been duly elected. 3. It was also prayed that either fresh elections be ordered to the petitioners be declared to have been duly elected. 3. The Tribunal who was the Sub-Divisional Officer, of the area relying upon the case of Shri Shyam Narain Singh v. The S.D.O., Chunar, 1958 A.L.J. 761 (a single Judge decision of this Court) held that one single petition could not challenge the election of more than one candidate and of basis he dismissed the petition. against that order the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in this Court which has been referred to this Division Bench. While making the reference, the learned single Judge who heard the petition was in agreement with the ruling relied upon by the Tribunal but referred the matter because it raised a question of importance. 4. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides, we are of opinion that the view of this Court reported in Shri Shyam Narain Singh v. The S.D.O., Chunar, 1958 A.L.J. 761 is the only view which can be taken on the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. On general principles one suit can embrace only the cause of action against one defendant. Taking a different view would involve necessary complications in the trial. Setting aside of the election of each candidate is an independent cause of action against each one of those whose election is sought to be set aside. In the present case, in respect of each of the successful candidates, evidence would have to be separately given as to the number of votes which that candidate received according to the petitioners and the number which was wrongly mentioned in the final list which had been filed and also how such a mistake crept in. Since voting for each of the candidates must have taken place separately, and each one of them must have obtained a different number of votes, the evidence against each of the defendants would be independent and separate. It may be that some witnesses may speak about the facts against several of the defendants, or different persons who may have observed the voting at different stages may be required to give evidence against different candidates. In such a situation normally there should be separate petitions challenging the election of each of the successful candidates unless the language of the statute other wise provides. 5. In such a situation normally there should be separate petitions challenging the election of each of the successful candidates unless the language of the statute other wise provides. 5. Sec. 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is the only section in the Act itself which relates to election petitions and this provides: "The election of a person as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. or as member of a Gaon Panchayat including the election of a person who may he appointed as a panch of Nyaya Panchayat under Sec. 43 shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority . . . ." The crucial phrase is `the election of a person.' Thus a person may be a Pradhan or a member of a Gaon Panchayat or a panch of a Nyaya Panchayat. The question is whether in this connection the singular includes the plural as provided by the General clauses Act. From the context in which it has been used it would naturally refer to a single person alone because, as stated above, the cause of action in respect of each person is separate and independent and it must, therefore, refer normally to one person alone. In the section itself, the word `a person' may either refer to a Pradhan or to a member of a Gaon Sabha. The Pradhan can only be one person and when the same term has been used to connote the Pradhan which can only be one person as also the member of the Gaon Sabha, it necessarily conveys the idea that the person whose election is challenged must be only one. 6. Rr. 24 and 25 made under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act give detailed procedure to be followed in the election petitions. The language of these rules has mainly been borrowed from the U.P. Municipalities Act with some modifications. R. 24 practically reproduces the language of Secs. 20 and 21 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and R. 25 repeats the language contained in Secs. 22 and 23 with one significant alteration that Cl. (a) of Sec. 23 (2) has been omitted, and in its place, another clause of the proviso to R. 25 has been substituted. Cl. R. 24 practically reproduces the language of Secs. 20 and 21 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and R. 25 repeats the language contained in Secs. 22 and 23 with one significant alteration that Cl. (a) of Sec. 23 (2) has been omitted, and in its place, another clause of the proviso to R. 25 has been substituted. Cl. (a) of Sec. 23(2) of the Municipalities Act is as follows :- "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," The substituted Cl. (1) of the proviso to R. 25 of the Rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Act merely relates to the powers of the Sub-Divisional Officer to hear the petitioner or his counsel and in a proper case to reject it summarily. Thus there is a significant omission of the power given under the U.P. Municipalities Act to challenge the election of more than one candidates by the same petition. The legislature must have deliberately made this change in order to simplify the procedure in the election petitions relating to Panchayats. A similar question whether the election of more than one candidates can be challenged by one and the same petition came up under the U.P. Municipalities Act in Mohd. Abdul Baqi Khan v. Sirajul Hasan, 17 A.L.J. 844. A Division Bench of this Court considered the language of Secs, 19 and 20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and observed: "If this provision stood alone it would appear to indicate that the petition in the case of an unsuccessful candidate claiming to be elected in the place of the successful candidate who is unseated must be confined to one successful candidate Cl. (23), however, gets over this difficulty. By sub-Sec. 2(a) it is provided that 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 ..... (23), however, gets over this difficulty. By sub-Sec. 2(a) it is provided that 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 ..... " Thus as far back as 1919, the view of this Court was that but for the clear provision made by Sec. 23 (2) (a) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, the election of only one candidate could be challenged by one petition. This interpretation of the law was before the framers of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules and they must have intended, by omitting the provision to join more than one successful candidates whose election is challenged in the same petition not to permit such a combination. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in a case where the whole election is challenged on common grounds which would have vitiated the election of all the candidates it would be convenient to join all the successful candidates in the same petition is not by itself sufficient to over-ride the clear provision of law. The inconvenience in such a case of filing several petitions is a very minor one when it is obvious that the real inconvenience of several trials on the same point can be avoided by trying all such petitions together and consolidating them, which power has apparently been given to the Tribunal by applying the whole of the C.P.C. in the trial of such petitions. We are, therefore, satisfied that the election petition as framed was incompetent. 8. It was also contended by the learned counsel, in the alternative that the court below should have permitted the petitioners to choose against which of the defendant-respondents they wished to proceed and after such choice had been indicated, should have proceeded to decide the petition against that candidate alone and should not have dismissed it. But such a ground had not been taken in the writ petition nor is this a matter of jurisdiction. It was open to the petitioners, when the question of validity of the election petition was raised on this ground, to have prayed for amendment of their petition, so that it remained a petition against one of the successful candidates only. This not having been done, it cannot be said that the impugned order is invalid in law. It was open to the petitioners, when the question of validity of the election petition was raised on this ground, to have prayed for amendment of their petition, so that it remained a petition against one of the successful candidates only. This not having been done, it cannot be said that the impugned order is invalid in law. 9. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.