Short Note : The petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Simri Jalamsingh, in the elections held in June, 1978. Respondent No. 1 Shankarlal Rai filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner. The said respondent was a contesting candidate who had lost in the elections. By order dated 30th October 1978, the Sub-Divisional Officer. Damoh, allowed the election petition and declared the respondent to be duly elected. It is this order which is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the election petition was not tried in accordance with law and that the petitioner was not given opportunity to prove his defence. It is further contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer did not consider the recrimination made by the petitioner against the respondent. Held: On 23rd October 1978 the respondent filed certain documents one of which was said to be an admission made by the petitioner that Panchayat dues were outstanding against him. On 26th October 1978 the order-sheet records that the petitioner filed his written arguments. A look at page 87 of the record goes to show that the written arguments were submitted on 23rd October 1978 by the petitioner. In this, the petitioner clearly stated that he should be given an opportunity to disprove the allegations made by the respondent; and that in the absence of any evidence, and as the record stood, the Sub- Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the election petition. It was also pointed out that petitioner had filed a recrimination petition which should also be decided after recording evidence. It appears to us that no serious thought was given by the Sub-Divisional Officer to these submissions made by the petitioner and the election petition was decided on 30th October 1978 by the impugned order in which it was held that as Panchayat dues were outstanding against the petitioner, he was not eligible for contesting the election. It was also held that as the respondent was the contesting candidate, he had to be declared elected. 3. It was also held that as the respondent was the contesting candidate, he had to be declared elected. 3. A narration of the above facts will go to show that the election petition was not tried in accordance with law and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence to show that he was not in arrears and that the respondent could not be declared to be elected. An election petition filed under section 357 of the Act has to be tried in accordance with the rules framed thereunder. Rule 11 of these rules provided that subject to the provisions of these rules every election petition shall be enquired into by the prescribed authority as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits; provided that it shall only be necessary for the prescribed authority to make a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of any witness examined by it. Rule 16 makes provision for recrimination. Rule 17 makes the Indian Evidence Act applicable to the proceedings under the rules. Having regard to the provisions of these rules, it has to be held that the trial of the election petition was not in accordance with law. The documents, specially the so called admission, filed by the respondent required proof. It has to be proved by producing oral evidence. Similarly, opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to lead evidence to disprove the allegations made by the respondent. Further, the Sub-Divisional Officer should have also enquired into the recrimination petition made by the petitioner about which the Sub-Divisional Officer has not said a single word in the whole of his order. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be supported. Petition allowed. Case remanded.