JUDGMENT R.L. Gulati, J. - The petitioner and the second respondent, Jagdish, contested an election for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Arnaoli, in May, 1972. The petitioner secured 435 votes while Jagdish obtained 433 votes and 20 ballot papers were declared invalid. Jagdish filed an election petition ,before the first respondent, the sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut. One of the grounds in the election petition was that some of the votes cast in favour of the petitioner had been wrongly accepted. The respondent Jagdish applied for inspection of ballot papers and the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the inspection. As a result of the scrutiny of the ballot papers the sub-Divisional Officer declared two votes cast in favour of the petitioner as invalid. Thereupon the petitioner made an application dated May 17, 1973 stating that similar votes as had been declared invalid in his case were cast in favour of the respondent also and therefore he should also be allowed to inspect. the ballot papers of the respondent to substantiate his allegation. This application has been rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 28th June, 1973, on the ground that in the written statement the petitioner had nowhere stated that some of the votes were wrongly counted in favour of the respondent. The petitioner has challenged this order in this petition under Art:226; of the Constitution, 2. Under Rule 24 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, an election petitioner has to specify the grounds and the particulars upon which the election is questioned. Sub-rule (3) (previously Sub-rule (4) ) of this rule provides : "(3) Every respondent may give evidence to prove that any person in respect of whom a claim is made that such person be declared elected, should not be declared so elected on the same ground or grounds on which his election could have been questioned, it he had been elected." Thus while an election petitioner has to specify the grounds and the particulars upon which he challenges the election, there is no such requirement for the respondent, who has to defend his election. Rule-24(3) confers. upon a respondent in election petition a right to lead evidence to prove that election petitioner would fail on the same ground upon which he challenges his (respondent's) election. Rule-24(3) confers. upon a respondent in election petition a right to lead evidence to prove that election petitioner would fail on the same ground upon which he challenges his (respondent's) election. For that no pleading is required, nor is the respondent required to set out any particulars in his written statement: The reason is very simple. An election petitioner can succeed only if he proves that certain votes have wrongly been counted in favour of the winning candidates and the result of the election has, been materially affected thereby. He has of necessity to set out the precise grounds and give particulars of any votes which he allege to have been wrongly received in favour of the winning candidate. The case of the respondent, however, is different. He has to lead evidence in rebuttal only if the election petitioner has made out a prima facie case with regard to both the requirements, namely that some votes have wrongly been counted in favour of the respondent and that as a result thereof the result of the election has been materially affected. It is only after the respondent becomes aware of the ground upon which some of his votes are declared invalid that he can in rebuttal show that on the same ground same, of the votes cast in favour of the election petitioner would also be invalid and if those votes are eliminated, the result of the election will not be materially affected. He cannot set out the particulars, of such votes before hand when he files his written statement It is enough, if he denies the allegation of the petitioner in his written statement The right to lead evidence in rebuttal is an inherent right vested in the respondent not depending upon his pleadings. Observations to this effect were made by a Full Bench of this Court in Nathu Ram v. R. P. Dikshit, A.I.R. 1965 Alld. 454 where a similar question arose under Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice a decision of the Supreme Court in P. Malai Chami v. M. Andi Ambalam A.I.R. 1973 S. C. 2077 "where a different view has been taken. There it has been held that unless a respondent files a, recrimination petition and fulfils other requirements of, Section 97. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice a decision of the Supreme Court in P. Malai Chami v. M. Andi Ambalam A.I.R. 1973 S. C. 2077 "where a different view has been taken. There it has been held that unless a respondent files a, recrimination petition and fulfils other requirements of, Section 97. he has no right to lead evidence by asking for the scrutiny of voles cast in favour of the election petitioner. Now, the submission of the learned counsel that this case of the Supreme Court impliedly overrules the decision of the Full Bench in Nathu Ram v. R. P. Dikshiti A.I.R. 1965 Alld. 454 appears to be correct. But here we are not concerned with Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act. That section also gives a right to the respondent of an election petition to lead evidence in similar terms as under Rule 24(3) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules. But the right conferred b Section 97 is subject to certain conditions. The conditions are that the respondent has to give a notice within fourteen days of his intention to give such evidence and he has also to furnish security as mentioned in Secs. 117 and 118 of the Representation of Peoples Act and every such notice has to accompanied by statements and particulars required under Section 83 as in the case of an election petition which has to be signed and verified in the like manner. No such conditions are attached to Rule 24(3) of the Panchayat Raj Rules. The respondent is not required to file any recrimination petition, `nor has he to furnish any security or to give particulars as required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act. Rule 24(3) confers an unfettered right upon a respondent to lead evidence to show that the election petitioner would fail on similar grounds upon which he challenges the respondent's election. This right does not depend upon his pleadings nor upon his furnishing particulars of the votes improperly cast in favour of the election petitioner. 4. Rule 24(3) confers an unfettered right upon a respondent to lead evidence to show that the election petitioner would fail on similar grounds upon which he challenges the respondent's election. This right does not depend upon his pleadings nor upon his furnishing particulars of the votes improperly cast in favour of the election petitioner. 4. Learned counsel then relied upon Rule 25 of the Panchayat Raj Rules which provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, every election petition shall be tried by the Sub:Divisional Officer, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure to the trial of suits contention is that under the Code of Civil Procedure a defendant cannot lead evidence, unless the particulars are set out by him in his written statement. This rule is,subject to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and the rules framed thereunder, and as already pointed out above, Rule 24(3) confers upon a respondent an unfettered right to lead evidence of the kind mentioned there in irrespective of his pleadings in the written statement. 5. For the reasons stated above, I am of opinion that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not right in rejecting the application of the petitioner asking for permission to inspect the ballot papers cast in favour of the respondent to show that similar votes as had been rejected in the petitioner's case were also cast in favour of the respondent and if such votes are eliminated, the result of the election would not be materially affected. The votes or ballot papers provide evidence and the petitioner cannot be denied the right to lead such evidence. 6. The petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut, dated 28th June, 1973 is quashed. He shall restore the petitioner's application to its original number and decide it fresh in accordance with the law and the observations made herein. 7. The petitioner is entitled to the costs.