JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.—This is an application filed by respondent No. 1 (the returned candidate) praying that the enquiry relating to the issues regarding the recrimination notice be deferred and be tried after a declaration has been made under Section 100 (l)(d) of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the Representation Act) declaring the election of respondent No. 1 as void The learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed this application, 2. At the time of arguments, a preliminary objection was raised that the petition filed by the returned candidate for recrimination was barred by limitation. This contention was, however, not pressed and rightly so, as the petition was admittedly within limitation. 3. On merits it is contended by the learned counsel for the returned candidate that according to law settled by the Supreme Court, if the returned candidate has recriminated and has raised pleas then the pleas as contained in the recrimination petition may have to be tried after a declaration has been made under Section 100 and the matter proceeds to be tried under Section 101 (a). A reference has been made to a decision in Jabar Singh v, Genda Lal, [AIR 1964 SC 1200], In this judgment, it was ruled : "If the returned candidate has recriminated and has raised pleas in regard to the votes cast in favour of the alternative candidate or his votes wrongly rejected, then those pleas may have to be tried after a declaration has been made under Section 100 and the matter proceeds to be tried under Section 101 (a). In other words, the first part of the enquiry in regard to the validity of the election of the returned candidate must be tried within the narrow limits prescribed by Section 100 (1) (d) (iii) and the latter part of the enquiry which is governed by Section 101 (a) will have to be tried on a broader basis permitting the returned candidate to lead evidence in support of the pleas which he may have taken by way of recrimination under Section 97 (1)....." The learned counsel for the returned candidate has also referred to a decision in Ram Autar Singh Bhadauria v. Ram Gopal Singh and others, [AIR 1975 SC 2182] in support of his contention. The relevant observations may be reproduced for a ready reference : "It is true that in a composite election petition wherein the petitioner claims not only that the election of the returned candidate is void but also that the petitioner or some other person be declared to have been duly elected, Section 97 would also come into play and allow the returned candidate to recriminate and raise counter-pleas in support of his case, "but the pleas of the returned candidate under Section 97 have to be tried after a declaration has been made under Section 100 of the Act. The first part of the enquiry in regard to the validity of the election "of the returned candidate has therefore to be tried within the narrow limits prescribed by Section 100 (1) (d) (iii) and the latter part of the enquiry governed by Section 101 (a) will have to be tried on a broader basis permitting the returned candidate to lead evidence in support of the pleas taken by him in his recriminatory petition ; but even in such a case the enquiry necessary while dealing with the dispute under Section 101 (a) will not be wider if the returned candidate has failed to recriminate and in a case of this type the duty of the Election Tribunal will not be to count and scrutinise all the votes cast at the election." 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recrimination petition as also the election petition are to be tried jointly and cannot be separated. It is further contended that the application has been filed simply to delay the decision and prolong the trial. It is pointed out that the court had framed issues in respect of the election petition as also the recrimination petition together and that the evidence in respect of all the issues was to be led together. It is contended that under Section 98 of the Representation Act, at the conclusion of the trial of the election petition, the court has to make an order dismissing the election petition or declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void and that the petitioner or any other candidate had been duly elected. 5. It is contended that under Section 98 of the Representation Act, at the conclusion of the trial of the election petition, the court has to make an order dismissing the election petition or declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void and that the petitioner or any other candidate had been duly elected. 5. It may be pointed out that Section 98 of the Representation Act can not be read in isolation and has to be read with other sections of the Representation Act and especially with reference to Section 97, 100 and 101 of the Representation Act. Bearing a mind the principle laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, I am of the view that the pleas of the returned candidate under Section 97 have to be tried after a declaration has been made under Section 100 of the Representation Act 6. The impact of the above decision is that the cross-examination of the petitioner shall continue and the returned candidate shall be at liberty to cross-examine the petitioner in respect of the pleas contained in the recrimination petition so as to avoid the necessity of the petitioner to re-appear as his witness in respect of the recrimination petition. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to re-appear as a witness in the said recrimination petition, if he so desires. 7. The returned candidate shall furnish a list of witnesses in support of his pleas contained in the recrimination petition within two days so that such witnesses are examined immediately after the evidence of the returned candidate is concluded. Necessary steps in this behalf be taken so that the presence of such witnesses is secured at the time when they are to be examined. The petitioner shall also be entitled to produce his evidence in the recrimination petition after the evidence of the returned candidate is closed in the said petition. 8. The application is accordingly disposed of, but with no order as to costs. Order accordingly.