A.K. MATHUR, J.—The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order (Annex. 3) dated 3.12.1990 passed by the Munsif, Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the convenient disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner contested the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Naggi, Tehsil Sri Karanpur and he was declared successful. Respondent No. 1 was a defeated candidate and after the election, he filed an election petition before the Munsif, Sri Karanpur on various grounds. One of the grounds was that there were irregularities in the counting. That petition is pending. However, during the pendency of the election petition the respondent No. 1 moved an application for recount of the votes. Copy of this application has been placed on the record as Annex. 2. The learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties passed an order of recount and aggrieved against this order of recount dated 3.12.1990 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the same. 3. The principal submission of the learned counsel is that an election petition has to stand or fall on the nature of the averments made by the petitioner in his election petition and recount cannot be ordered on the basis of the elections result. Learned counsel submitted that the necessary material particulars have not been given in the application warranting the order by the learned Munsif for recounting of votes. In support of this submission learned counsel has invited my attention to N.C. Zeliang vs. Aju Newmai (1), and Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi(2). 4. A reply has been filed by the respondent and it has been pointed out that when the recount was done both of the candidates secured 800 votes each and three votes were found missing and the result was declared by the Returning officer by counting three votes in favour of the petitioner, whereas three votes should have been counted in favour of the respondent. It is submitted in the alternative that when these votes were found missing then the result should have been declared by way of toss. It is submitted that the averments mentioned in the petition and the reply filed by the respondent and the statement made by the petition during the election petition substantially support the case of the respondent. Therefore, the learned Munsif has rightly ordered for recount of the votes. It is submitted that the averments mentioned in the petition and the reply filed by the respondent and the statement made by the petition during the election petition substantially support the case of the respondent. Therefore, the learned Munsif has rightly ordered for recount of the votes. In this connection, Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent has made a distinction between the corrupt practices and material irregularity committed in the conduct of the election. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Rule 78 (d)(iii) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Up-Samiti Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1960). He has also invited my attention to decision of the Honble Supreme Court in case of N.E. Horo. vs. Leander Tiru (3). 5. In order to appreciate the controversy raised by both the learned counsel, it is necessary to refer to the relevant portion of Rule 78 of the Rules of 1960. Rule 78 (d), which is relevant for our present purpose, reads as under:- "(b) that the result of the election or co-option, as the case may be, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate was materially affected: (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the candidate by a person other than that candidate or by a person acting with the consent or connivance of such candidate, or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which was void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of these rules, or." 6. Rule 78 lays down the manner of challenging an election. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) deal with the separate situations like that on the date of election a candidate was not qualified or became disqualified for such election; that corrupt practice was committed by a candidate or with his consent or connivance by any other person; and that any nomination was improperly rejected. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) deal with the separate situations like that on the date of election a candidate was not qualified or became disqualified for such election; that corrupt practice was committed by a candidate or with his consent or connivance by any other person; and that any nomination was improperly rejected. But clause (d), which is relevant for our present purpose, says that the result of the election can be set aside if it is materially affected by improper acceptance of any nomination paper or on account of any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the candidate by a person other than that candidate or by a person acting with the consent or connivance of such candidate or by improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which was void or by non-compliance of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. 7. So far as the present controversy is concerned, I have to see as to whether the result of the election is materially affected by improper reception, refusal or rejection of the votes or not. 8. Now, in the present case, it has been submitted by the election petitioner respondent No. 1 in para (7) of the election petition (Annex. 1) that :- iqu% erx.kuk fd;s tkus ds vuqlkj vkosnd dks o mRrjoknh dks izR;sd dks 600 ; 800 er] izkIr gksus ik;s x;s ok 97 er fujLr fd;s x;sA bl izdkj 3 er i= de ik;s x;sA bl x.kuk ds vuqlkj Hkh mRrjoknh fot;h ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha Fkk ijUrq fuokZpu vf/kdkjh us vkosnd dks izkIr 3 er i= xk;c dj fn;s vkSj xk;c fd, x, er i=ksa dks mRrjoknh dks izkIr gq, er ekudj mRrjoknh dks fot;h ?kksf"kr dj fn;k tc fd okLro esa mDr 3 er vkosnd dks izkIr kqnk Fks vkSj vkosnd fot;h gqvk FkkA ijUrq bl er x.kuk ds vuqlkj Hkh fuokZpu vf/kdkjh dks Vksl djuk pkfg, Fkk ysfdu fuokZpu vf/kdkjh us Vksl u djds vuqfpr o voS/k :i mRrjoknh dks fuokZfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k gS ftls vkosnd voS/k ?kksf"kr djk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 9. Thereafter, the evidence was led by the petitioner and he examined himself as A, W. 5 in opposition of the election petition and in the cross-examination, he admitted the substantial portion of the election petition which reads as under:- ^^fuokZpu vf/kdkjh rhuksa er i= ckgj ls mBkdj yk;k Fkk] mu rhuksa er i=ksa dks lhy fd;k FkkA os rhuksas er i= bdV~Bs gq, FkssA eri= ckgj ls mBkus ds ckn rhuksa er i=ksa dks esjs lkeus ugha [kksyk o ugha fdlh dks fn[kk;kA ifj.kke ?kksf"kr djus ds FkksM+h nsj igys djhc 10&15 feuV igys mBkdj yk;s FksA fuokZpu vf/kdkjh us og rhuksa eri= ,l-Mh-,e- lkgc o Mh-,l-ih- lkgc o tksuy vf/kdkjh esa ls fdlh dks ugha fn[kk;kA mu rhuksa er i=ksa dks lkjs er i=ksa ds lkFk lhYM dj fn;k FkkA 10. On this basis an application was moved by the respondent (defeated-candidate) that in these circumstances, since there is a shortage of 3 votes which were subsequently recovered and counted in favour of the petitioner, were actually cast in favour of the respondent (defeated candidate) therefore, the Returning Officer has improperly rejected these votes from the tally of respondent (defeated candidate) and counted in favour of the petitioner, which has materially affected the result of the election by improper reception of votes in favour of the petitioner. 11. Therefore, in this back ground, I have to examine that the order of re-count passed by the learned Munsif can be upheld or not. 12. Mr. Bhagwati, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged before me that the material particulars given in the present case are insufficient for ordering recount of votes and he submitted that the pleadings have to be specific to this effect and in support of his submission, he has relied upon the N.C. Zeliang case (supra). This was a case under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the question before their Lordships of the Supreme Court was with regard to corrupt practice. In this context, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:- "An allegation of corrupt practice must be clearly pleaded in the petition and the particulars given in the schedule. Corrupt practice being in the nature of a fraud, it is not permissible to plead one kind of fraud or one kind of corrupt practice and prove another though they may be interconnected." 13. Corrupt practice being in the nature of a fraud, it is not permissible to plead one kind of fraud or one kind of corrupt practice and prove another though they may be interconnected." 13. In P.K.K. Sharnsudeen vs. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen (4) the election of Panchayat President was challenged under the Tamil Nadu Panch-yats Act, 1958 and in that case, it was observed as under:- "An order of recount of votes must stand or fall on the nature of the averments made and the evidence adduced before the order of recount is made and not from the results emanating from the recount of votes." 14. Similarly, in the case of Laxmi Narayan Nayak (supra) it was observed as under:- The pleadings of the election petitioner in his petition should be adso-lutely precise and clear containing all necessary details and particulars as required by law. The allegations in the election petition should not be vague, general in nature or lack in materials or be frivolous or vexatious because the court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike down or delete pleadings which are suffering from such vices as not raising any triable issue. The evidence adduced in support of the pleadings should be of such nature leading to an irresistible conclusion or unimpeachable results that the allegations made have been committed rendering the election void under Sec. 100. The evidence produced before the court in support of the pleadings must be clear, cogent, satisfactory, credible and positive and also should stand the test of strict and scrupulous scrutiny. It is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurances for some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents. The onus of proof of the election petition is undoubtedly on the person who assails an election which has been concluded." 15. The question is that whether there is a necessary material on the record or not for ordering a recount. In N.C. Zeliangs case (supra) the question was that whether necessary particulars of corrupt practice have been given or not. Similarly in the cases of P.K.K. Sharnsudeen and Laxmi Narayan Nayak (supra) the ratio is that necessary particulars should be given in support for ordering a recount. Now, the question is whether in the present case the necessary particulars are present or not. 16. Similarly in the cases of P.K.K. Sharnsudeen and Laxmi Narayan Nayak (supra) the ratio is that necessary particulars should be given in support for ordering a recount. Now, the question is whether in the present case the necessary particulars are present or not. 16. As I have already reproduced the necessary pleadings of the petitioner in his election petition and the statement made by the returned candidate Shri Ranjeet Singh as A.W. 5 which shows that both the candidates have obtained equal number of votes i.e. 800-800 each and there was question of counting three votes. The allegations are that these three votes were retrieved by the Returning Officer and they were counted which has materially affected the result of the election. In this view of the matter, the learned Munsif passed the order of recount on the application made by the Respondent Rajendra Singh election petitioner. This order of the learned Munsif does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction. The cases which have been cited by the learned counsel only lay down that the necessary particulars should be there, which is a condition precedent for ordering recount of votes and whether these necessary particulars are there or not is essentially a question of fact in each case. In the present case, it has to be found-out whether these three votes which have been retrieved by the Returning Officer as per the allegation have been properly received or not. Therefore, the result of im-proper reception of these votes is bound to materially affect the result of the election and as such the learned Munsif has rightly exercised his jurisdiction in the matter. 17. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent has also invited my attention to N.E. Horos case wherein P.K.K. Shamsudeens case was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and after considering the same they affirmed the observations of the High Court. It was observed as under:- "The margin was also so thin that actually a difference of 20 votes would have materially affected the result of the election. It was observed as under:- "The margin was also so thin that actually a difference of 20 votes would have materially affected the result of the election. In a case of such a thin margin, it is ordinarily necessary for the interest of justice and fair play that an order of inspection of the counted ballot papers should be granted to eliminate the possibility and the allegations of maneuvered ballot papers or the increase or decrease of the votes by some interested person associated with the process of the election. In this case admittedly, the figures collected are not imaginary nor any attempt has been made to fish out material in roving manner because they are based on result sheet, Ext. 2, granted by the Returning Officer. 18. In the present case, as already held above, the necessary particulars are already there and there is a thin margin of 3 votes. Therefore, looking from both the aspects, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Munsif for recount is correct and does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.