ORDER R.B. Mehrotra, J. - The petitioner has been elected as Nagar Pramukh of Meerut Nagar Mahapalika in an election held on 3-2-1989. Respondent No. 2 filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner before the District Judge, Meerut, as election Tribunal constituted under S. 61 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. The said election petition was contested by the present petitioner who filed a written statement wherein in paragraphs 18 to 21 it was specifically mentioned that the election petition does not contain a concise statement of material facts. It was also asserted that the petition does not set forth any particulars of any corrupt practice nor does it contain the statement of necessary particulars, as such it was contended that the petition is not maintainable. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, an application was moved by the petitioner on 2-7-1990 before the Election Tribunal that since the election petition does not disclose any cause of action, the petition is liable to be rejected in accordance with the provision of O. 7, R. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was opposed by respondent No. 2. However, the Election Tribunal, vide its order dated 18-8-1990, passed a detailed order on petitioner's application for dismissing the election petition under O. 7, R. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the application of respondent No. 2 opposing the said application. In the said order, the election tribunal framed a preliminary issue in the following terms :- "Whether the petition is not maintainable as pleaded in paras 18 to 21 in the written statement and the plaint is liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code? Fix 27th August, 1990 for disposal of issue?" 2. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he has never sought any adjournment after 18th of August, 1990 and all the time the case was adjourned either on the request of the counsel for respondent No. 2 or on account of any other reason. The petitioner has further contended that meanwhile the Presiding Officer changed and some other person was appointed as II Addl. District Judge, Meerut and the petitioner also changed his counsel and moved an application on 14- 1-1991 praying therein that instead of deciding the issue. The entire election petition should be disposed of. The petitioner has further contended that meanwhile the Presiding Officer changed and some other person was appointed as II Addl. District Judge, Meerut and the petitioner also changed his counsel and moved an application on 14- 1-1991 praying therein that instead of deciding the issue. The entire election petition should be disposed of. Without giving any opportunity of filing any objection to the said application, the II Addl. District Judge, Meerut allowed the said application on the next day i.e., 15-1-1991 fixing 25-1-1991 for framing issues and holding that it is not necessary to decide the preliminary issues framed by his predecessor and the entire election petition should be decided. The petitioner has challenged this order by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have heard Sri G.N. Verma, the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Sri G.N. Verma has submitted as under :- (i) The Election Tribunal, vide its order, dated 18th of August, 1990 having framed a preliminary issue on the question regarding maintainability of the election petition and also having held that the said preliminary issue should be decided first before deciding the election petition, it had no jurisdiction to recall the said order and take a contrary view by a subsequent order holding that preliminary issue framed by the election tribunal need not be decided separately. (ii) The power to recall the order passed earlier by the election tribunal could have been exercised only within the limited sphere of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. and it was not open for the election tribunal to take a different view at a subsequent stage in the same election petition. (iii) The election tribunal was not justified on merits to take a view that the entire election petition should be decided instead of deciding the preliminary issue first. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was incumbent in law and necessary in the interest of justice that the preliminary issue should have been decided first before deciding the election petition itself. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was incumbent in law and necessary in the interest of justice that the preliminary issue should have been decided first before deciding the election petition itself. 4. In reply to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Govind Saran has submitted that the election tribunal was within its power to take a view in the circumstances of the case that the entire election petition should be decided altogether and it is not necessary to decide any issue as a preliminary issue particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has moved an application for deciding the issue as a preliminary issue after a lapse of one year and four months from the date of filing of the election petition. The application was simply given to delay the proceedings and make the election petition infructuous. 5. The second submission of Sri Govind Saran is that no injury will be caused to the petitioner if the entire election petition is decided in one stroke instead of deciding the preliminary issue first. 6-7. Thirdly it has been contended that admittedly the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable by Rule 8 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Yachika Niyamawali, 1959 for trying the election petition in the present matter. Under Order 14 Rule 2, C.P.C., It is obligatory on the court to pronounce judgment on all issues simultaneously except under the conditions set out in sub-rule (2) of the aforesaid rules. The counsel for the respondent has submitted that the present case does not fall within the limits of sub-rule (2) and as such the court was justified in taking the view that all the issues should be decided together. In the impugned order, the election tribunal has taken a view that the points raised by the petitioner in his written statement in the election petition in paragraphs 18 to 21 of the written statement were mixed question of fact and law and as such those points cannot be decided as preliminary issue as it will require giving of evidence. "18. That the election petition does not contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. The petition is not as such maintainable. 19. "18. That the election petition does not contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. The petition is not as such maintainable. 19. That the petition does not set forth any particulars what to speak of full ones, of any corrupt practices which the petitioner alleges in the petition nor does the petition contain a statement of other relevant particulars, as mandated under the provisions of the relevant law. The petition is not maintainable for that reason too. 20. That the contents of the petition do not conform to the mandatory provision of law which renders the petition fatelly defective. 21. That the allegations in the petition are altogether vague and do not disclose a cause of action. As such they are liable to be struck off." 8. Section 63 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam is para materia with S. 83 of the Representation of the Peoples Act and the requirements of forms and contents of the election petition under Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam and under Representation of the Peoples Act are the same. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code mandates that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose the cause of action. For convenient reference, relevant portion of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced below : "11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases. (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action. ........................" 9. Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure are also being reproduced below for convenient reference : - "2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. - (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the court shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. - (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the court shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that the case of any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision of that issue. 3 to 4 ..................................................... 5. Power to amend, and strike out issues.- (1) The court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The court may also, at anytime before passing a decree, strike out any issue that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced." 10 . In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, reported in, 1986 All LJ 625 : AIR 1986 SC 1253 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held (para 11) : "In view of this pronouncement there is no escape from the conclusion that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. So also it emerges from the aforesaid decision that appropriate orders in exercise of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure can be passed if the mandatory requirements enjoined by S. 83 of the Act to incorporate the material facts in the election petition are not complied with ......................................" 11 . So also it emerges from the aforesaid decision that appropriate orders in exercise of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure can be passed if the mandatory requirements enjoined by S. 83 of the Act to incorporate the material facts in the election petition are not complied with ......................................" 11 . In Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rahiv Gandhi, reported in, AIR 1987 SC p. 1577, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under (para 13) : "The appellant's grievance that in entertaining the preliminary objections and rejecting the election petition under O. VII R. 11 the High Court deprived the appellants Opportunity to amend the petition and to make good the deficiencies by supplying the necessary particulars and details of the corrupt practice alleged in the petition is devoid of any merit. Firstly the appellant was free to file amendment application, but at no stage he expressed any desire to make any amendment application nor he made any application to that effect before the High Court. It was open to the appellant to have made that application but he himself did not make any such application. The High Court was under no legal obligation to direct the appellant to amend pleadings or to suo motu grant time for the same. Secondly, the allegations of corrupt practice as required by S. 33 were not complete and the same did not furnish any cause of action, any amendment made after the expiry of the period of limitation could not be permitted which would amount to raise a new ground of challenge. The question, however, does not arise as the appellant did not file any amendment application .................... 12. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the election tribunal was justified in its first order in framing a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the election petition in view of the pleadings raised by the petitioner in his written statement in reply to the election petition filed by respondent No. 2. Sri G.N. Verma has submitted that the election tribunal in its first order has rightly framed the preliminary issue and thereafter the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to recall the said order. Sri G.N. Verma has submitted that the election tribunal in its first order has rightly framed the preliminary issue and thereafter the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to recall the said order. The impugned order suffers from patent illegality as the election tribunal without any authority of law has recalled the first order passed by the election tribunal requiring framing of the preliminary issue and also requiring the said issue to be decided as preliminary issue. Sri Verma has also submitted that from paragraphs 18 to 21, it is clear that the questions raised by the petitioner relating to the maintainability of the election petition on the basis of the pleadings in the election petition itself, no evidence was required to be given for deciding the aforesaid preliminary issue. The question could have been decided without taking any evidence. The election tribunal in passing the impugned order was in error in taking a view that on the basis of the pleadings raised in paragraphs 18 to 21 of the written statement, some evidence is required to be given by the parties for deciding the said issue. The said view of the election tribunal, according to Sri G.N. Verma, is patently incorrect. 13. Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the respondent, has, however, submitted that under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, the court is under an obligation to decide only that issue as a preliminary issue which related to the jurisdiction of the court or which relates to a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. The present case does not come under any of the aforesaid two exceptions. He has also submitted that the court has power to amend and struck, down the issues under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such the election tribunal committed no error in striking out the issue framed by the election tribunal in its earlier order and deciding that the entire issues should be framed and the matter should be decided finally. Sri Govind Saran has relied upon the following decisions :- (i) Ram Babu Singhal Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Digmbar Prasad Kirti Prasad reported in, AIR 1988 All 299 . Sri Govind Saran has relied upon the following decisions :- (i) Ram Babu Singhal Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Digmbar Prasad Kirti Prasad reported in, AIR 1988 All 299 . In this case it has been held that the court has discretion in the matter on framing and deciding the preliminary issue regarding question of jurisdiction and the court committed no error in rejecting the application for deciding any issue as a preliminary issue. (ii) Yamuna Shankar Mishra v. Mahendra Mahendra Kumar, reported in, 1988 All LJ 360. In this case the court held that where issue of jurisdiction of the court involves determination of mixed questions of law and facts requiring recording of evidence, the same cannot he tried as a preliminary issue. (iii) M.D. Najundaswamy v. Basic Education Society (R), reported in, AIR 1990 Kant 245. In this case, it has been held that the trial court must have great deal of latitude in conducting the trial and deciding issues and the High Court may not rightly interfere with that discretion unless it is demonstrated that the procedure adopted by the trial court is likely to result in injustice to the aggrieved party. (iv) British Airways v. Art Works Export Ltd., reported in, AIR 1986 Cal 120 . It has been held in this case that where on the face of the plaint, the suit appears to be barred by any law in view of Article 30(1) read with Article 30(2) of the Second Schedule of the Carriage By Air Act, the court shall dismiss the suit but where it does not so appear, it requires further consideration or in other words if there is any doubt or if the court is not sure and certain that a suit is barred by some law, the court cannot reject the plaint under clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code. 14. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it has been submitted that no injustice has been done to the petitioner by the impugned order as the impugned order has been passed for ensuring expeditious decisions of the election petition which is a necessary ingredient for conducting and deciding the election petitions. It is also submitted that it was within the court's jurisdiction to decide any issue as a preliminary issue or to decide that such an issue shall be decided along with the suit itself. It is also submitted that it was within the court's jurisdiction to decide any issue as a preliminary issue or to decide that such an issue shall be decided along with the suit itself. Such a discretion should not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. The questions which arise for consideration in the present matter are firstly, whether the election tribunal had any power to recall its earlier order dated 18-8-1990 and take a different view of the matter and decide that the preliminary issue framed earlier by the election tribunal itself should be decided along with the election petition itself. Secondly if in an election petition a specific plea is raised that the election petition is not maintainable for want of necessary particulars and it does not disclose the cause of action, whether the election tribunal should decide the issue framed on that point as a preliminary issue. It is not disputed that under Rule 8 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Nirvachan Yachika Adhiniyam 1959, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable for the trial of election petitions. The election tribunal having itself decided to frame a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the election petition and having further decided that the said preliminary issue should be decided first before deciding the election petition, was there any justification for the election tribunal itself to recall the said order. The justification given in the impugned order is patently unsustainable in law. The election tribunal has taken a wrong view that on the pleadings raised in paragraphs 18 to 21 of the written statement, the composite question of fact and law need be decided. A bare reading of paragraphs 18 to 21 shows that the pleadings raised in these paragraphs raise purely legal question regarding maintainability of the election petition. Even assuming that the election tribunal could have recalled its order passed earlier, the reason on the basis of which the order passed earlier has been recalled is not sustainable in law. A bare reading of paragraphs 18 to 21 shows that the pleadings raised in these paragraphs raise purely legal question regarding maintainability of the election petition. Even assuming that the election tribunal could have recalled its order passed earlier, the reason on the basis of which the order passed earlier has been recalled is not sustainable in law. It may, however, be stated that once the election tribunal passed a detailed order, after hearing the parties, that an issue regarding maintainability of the election petition should be decided as a preliminary "issue, there was no power with the court to recall the said order except under the powers conferred under Order 47 Rule 1, C.P.C. Under Order 47 Rule 1, C.P.C. the court has been conferred powers to review its own order strictly on the conditions contemplated in the aforesaid provision. This is not disputed that in the present case those conditions are not satisfied and in fact the election tribunal has not reviewed its earlier order within the four corners of the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. The impugned order cannot be sustained under the provisions of the review as contemplated under O. 47 Rule 1, C.P.C. for both the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Besides that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 All LJ 625 (supra) has held that an election petition can be and must be dismissed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the mandatory requirements enjoined by S. 83 to incorporate the material facts and particulars relating to the alleged corrupt practice are not complied with. In the present case, S. 63 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam and S. 83 of the Representation of the Peoples Act are para materia. So the reasoning given by the Supreme Court for dismissing an election petition for non-compliance of the mandatory requirement to incorporate the material facts were equally available in the present case. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it must be held that in an election petition, when question regarding maintainability of the election petition on the ground of non-incorporating the material facts and particulars relating to alleged corrupt practrice is contended, such an issue must be decided as a preliminary issue. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it must be held that in an election petition, when question regarding maintainability of the election petition on the ground of non-incorporating the material facts and particulars relating to alleged corrupt practrice is contended, such an issue must be decided as a preliminary issue. There is no gainsaying that if the allegations made out in the written statement that the election petition does not contain material facts are incorrect and such an election petition does contain material facts, then the preliminary issue so framed shall be decided in favour of the election petitioner but for deciding such a preliminary issue, no evidence is required to be taken. The said issue is purely a legal issue and can be decided as a preliminary issue without any delay. If such a procedure is adopted, it will save the time of the court and will be expeditious in the interest of justice as if the election tribunal comes to the conclusion that the petition does not disclose material facts or does not disclose a cause of action, then the election petition can be dismissed on the said preliminary issue and the time of the parties in leading evidence and time of the Court in recording such evidence, will be saved. The decisions cited by Sri Govind Saran were decisions on civil law. The law for election petitions is a specialised law and requires a different approach. The election petition is strictly required to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Act providing for deciding the election petition. There is no scope of any equity in deciding the election petitions. The decisions cited by Sri Govind Saran did not relate to election petitions and as such are not applicable in the present case. I am satisfied that the election tribunal was justified in framing a preliminary issue on the question of maintainability of the election petition, vide its order, dated 18-8- 1990. The election tribunal was not justified in reversing the said order by the impugned order, dated 15-1-1996 filed as annexure `G' to the writ petition. This order is not sustainable in law for the reasons given above. 16. The election tribunal was not justified in reversing the said order by the impugned order, dated 15-1-1996 filed as annexure `G' to the writ petition. This order is not sustainable in law for the reasons given above. 16. Accordingly I quash the order dated 15-1-1991 filed as Annexure `6' to the writ petition and restore the order, dated 18-8- 1990, filed as Annexure `4' to the writ petition to the extent it has decided to frame a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the election petition and also to the extent it has decided to dispose of the said issue as a preliminary issue. The matter is being remanded back to the court of the II Addl. District Judge, Daya Nand Gupta v. Arun Kumar Jain, Election Petition No. 54 of 1989 for deciding the preliminary issue framed by it, vide its order dated 18-8-1990 within a month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Election tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will hear their own costs.