J. G. CHITRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is hereby assailing the order dated 28-2-1995 which has been passed against him by Ist Additional District Judge, Ratlam in the matter of Election Petition No. 7 of 1995 whereby the learned Additional District Judge allowed the said petition filed by Jagdish s/o Gangarani who happens to be opponent No. 1 in the present petitions. ( 2 ) FEW facts need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the controversy between the contesting litigants. Election were held for Sailana Municipal Council in the year 1994 and thereafter the President of Sailana Municipal Council was to be elected. Jagdish s/o Gangaram, as record shows also submitted his nomination paper for the purpose of plaing his claim for getting elected as President of Municipal Council. The record shows that his nomination paper was rejected by the concerned authority and, therefore, being aggrieved by the rejection, he submitted the said election petition. The learned Ist Additional District Judge considered all necessary facets and thereafter passed the said order which is being assailed by the present revision petitions. ( 3 ) THE petitioner first filed civil revision bearing No. 264/95 on 1-3-1995. When the said revision petition was filed, an objection was raised on behalf of opponent Jagdish making a grievance that the security deposit was not deposited at the time of presentation of Civil Revision No. 264/95 to the tune of Rs. 2504- which is required to be deposited in view of provisions of M. P. Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as M. P. Election Petition Rules ). The record further shows that on 2-3-1995 when revision petition No. 264/95 was called on for hearing on admission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought adjournment. The matter was then listed for further hearing on 10-3-1995. In the meanwhile on 7-3-1995 the present petitioner presented another revision petition before the High Court bearing No. 304 of 1995. At the time of presentation of said revision petition the present petitioner had deposited the said sum of Rs. 250/ -. So also he submitted an application making a prayer that he be permitted to withdraw Civil Revision No. 264/ 95 and his Civil Revision No. 304/95 be thereafter entertained. ( 4 ) NOW both these revision petitions have been called on for hearing on admission. 250/ -. So also he submitted an application making a prayer that he be permitted to withdraw Civil Revision No. 264/ 95 and his Civil Revision No. 304/95 be thereafter entertained. ( 4 ) NOW both these revision petitions have been called on for hearing on admission. ( 5 ) SHRI A. M. Mathur, Senior Counsel appearing with Shri K. G. Maheswari and Shri S. C. Agrawal, made submissions on relevant facets dealing with the merit of the order passed by Ist Addl. District Judge, Ratlam. Shri G. M. Chafekar, Senior counsel appearing with Shri S. R. Kochetta for opponent No. 1 raised objection that as the petitioner did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 19 of M. P. Election Petition Rules, Civil Revision No. 264 of 1995 deserves to be dismissed, ought to have been dismissed and, therefore, Civil Revision No. 304 of 1995 was also not tenable. Shri Raghuvanshi, Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for opponents 2 and 3 reiterated the same argument by adopting it. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel Shri Mathur placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the matter of Anup Pyarelal v. Baboolal Rambux ( 1979 MPLJ 487 ) for substantiating his argument touching the merits of the order impugned in both the revision petitions. He made reference to various facets depicted by the impugned order. But as I am of the opinion that the argument which has been advanced on behalf of opponent No. l deserves importance and finality so far as these two revision petitions are concerned, I need not discuss the argument which has been advanced by Shri Mathur, Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner on other facets speaking of the merit of the the order which has been assailed by the present revision petitions. ( 7 ) SHRI A. M. Mathur, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner with the assistance of Shri K. G. Maheswari pointed out the judgment of Privy Council in the matter of Abdullah Asgar Ali Khan v. Ganesh Dass, (AIR 1917 PC 201) for the purpose of submitting that if Civil Revision No. 264/945 stands dismissed, it would not operatp as res judicata while dealing with Civil Revision No. 304/ 95. The judgment of Privy Council is not relevant to the facts of this case as that revolves around a contract. It does not help the petitioner in these matters. The judgment of Privy Council is not relevant to the facts of this case as that revolves around a contract. It does not help the petitioner in these matters. ( 8 ) SHRI Chafekar, Senior counsel for opponent No. I placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Aeltemesh Rein v. Chandulal Chandrakar ( AIR 1981 SC 1199 ) wherein Supreme Court held that when the provisions of Section 117 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 are not complied with in view of provisions of S. 86 (1) of the Act, the High Court shall dismiss the election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Sectiotis 81, 82 and, 117 of the Act. Shri Chafekar alsi placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of M. Karunanidhi v. H. V. Handa, ( AIR 1983 SC 558 ) wherein Supreme Court held that the requirement regarding the making of security deposit of Rs. 2000/- in the High Court is mandatory the noncompliance of which must entail dismissal in limine of election petition under sub-sec. (1) of Section 86 of the Act. Shri Chafekar also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the matter of Babulal Kaluram v. State of M. P. (1986 MFLJ 128) : AIR 1986 MP 49 wherein this Court held that provisions of Rule 7 of M. P. Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1962 are mandatory. The requirement of deposit of security amount along with the petition is essential link in the chain of presentation of the petition. If the link is missing, there is no valid presentation of the petition. ( 9 ) IN the matter of Civil Revision No. 264/95 an interim application bearing No. 1186/ 95 has been moved by petitioner Radheshyam Patidar and in that application in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 a prayer has been made for permitting him to withdraw Civil Revision No. 264/ 95 which suffers infirmity of non-deposit of security amount of Rs. 250/- at the time of presentation of said revision petition. 250/- at the time of presentation of said revision petition. ( 10 ) SHRI Chafekar, Senior counsel for opponent No. 1 pointed out that the cumulative effect of averments in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of I. A. No. 1186/95 is that there should be an assurance from the Court that Civil Revision No. 304/95 would be admitted and in view of that, petitioner Radheshyam should be permitted to withdraw Civil Revision No. 264/ 95. He criticised this attitude of the present petitioner. Shri A. M. Mathur, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently clarified by saying that was never intended by petitioner Radheshyam and he does not want to bargain or seek any assurance from the Court. He submitted that he has expressed his mind at the time of making a prayer for withdrawal. ( 11 ) LEAVING aside the bitterness of arguments resultant of anxiety of justifying the case of litigants, the matter will have to be assessed dispassionately in view of legal provisions. ( 12 ) RULE 19 of M. P. Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules provides:- (1) No petition by way of revision shall lie against any interlocutory order passed by the Judge; (2) At the time of presentation of the petition for revision under sub-section (2) of Section 26 against the decision of the Judge, the petitioner shall deposit with the High Court a sum of Rs. 250/- as security for the costs of the revision. If the provisions of this rule are not complied with the High Court shall dismiss the petition". Keeping in view of the judgment of Supreme Court and the judgment of this Court quoted supra and the plain language of Section 19, it is mandatory for such petitioner to deposit security amount of Rs. 250/- at the time of presentation of revision petition before this Court and if he fails to do so, the only result would be dismissal of his petition. Civil Revision No. 264/95 suffers from the same infirmity, and illegality and, therefore, said revision petition will have to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ( 13 ) THE cumulative result of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of I. A. No. 1186/95 is that petitioner noticed that he committed illegality of not depositing security amount at the time of presentation of Civil Revision No. 264 of 1995 when it was presented on 1-3-1995. ( 13 ) THE cumulative result of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of I. A. No. 1186/95 is that petitioner noticed that he committed illegality of not depositing security amount at the time of presentation of Civil Revision No. 264 of 1995 when it was presented on 1-3-1995. Therefore, for the purpose of curing it the petitioner thought it better to present another revision petition by depositing the amount of Rs. 250/- and made prayer in a well. fashioned couched language seeking the relief that his cause may be permitted to be agitated before this Court. Such cannot be permitted because indirectly it is defeating the provisions of law and, therefore, Civil Revision No. 304 of 1995 also deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ( 14 ) CERTIFIED copy of this order be given to the parties on payment of necessary charges. Order accordingly. .