Judgment :- M.S. LIBERHAN, C.J. ( 1 ) THE facts are not in dispute. The petitioner challenged the election of the returned candidate, the 2nd respondent without impleading him as a party at any point of time. We fail to comprehend that in the absence of necessary party are partly likely to be affected, how the quasi-judicial much less judicial authority can act or assume jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/appellant vehemently contended that in the absence of any procedure prescribed or any form prescribed the petitioner is expected to only file a complaint. Bereft of all the procedure, on presenting of the petitioner having grounds of challenge in the petitioner, issuance of notice to the necessary party is the obligation of the authority to whom the petitioner is presented. We do not find any force in this ingenuine argument raised by learned Counsel for the appellant. On the principle of natural justice of audi alteram partem that no person can be condemned without granting an opportunity or hearing when concedingly it has been specifically so provided in the rules applicable to the case, even in the absence of statutory procedure prescribed relating to the format of the revision, if not strictly, the broad, basic, equitable and general principles of the procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure to determine all or any dispute would be applicable in all cases including the election matter being challenged before an authority specifically provided by the Act. Even elementary and fundamental principle of fair play and justice require and would make Jt obligatory for the appellant who filed a revision to set aside the election of the 2nd respondent to cite or array him as party respondent to his petition before the concerned authority. Particularly when his rights alone are sought to be affected and the election authority has no personal interest whatsoever in the matter. We find no ground to, interfere in the appeal and the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently C. M. P. No. 17051 of 1997 is dismissed.