Judgment :- P. Shanmugam, J. Petitioner was one of the candidates in the election to the post of Panchayat Member. The election was held on 25.9.95. Petitioner secured the highest number of votes and he was declared elected. The 2nd respondent filed an election petition before the Munsiff s Court, numbered as O.P. 10/95. 2. Petitioner entered appearance in the case on 21.11.1995 and he wanted to file a counter along with the recrimination petition as contemplated under S.99 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, However, he could not file his recrimination petition within 14 days as contemplated under S.99. Therefore, he filed an application to condone the delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act, in filing the recrimination petition. That petition I. A. 138/96 was dismissed. The Original Petition is against this order. 3. The Election Court found that under proviso to S.99 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, a counter has to be preferred within 14 days from the date of commencement of the trial. The words 'within 14days' are mandatory and "commencement of the trial" is explained in S.93. The Court also found on merits that the petitioner's contention that he was laid up was not true, since he participated in the Standing Committee Meeting on 22.12.95. On both the counts, the application was dismissed. 4. I have heard the counsel. 5. Explanation to sub-s.3 of S.93 is categorical to the effect that the trial of the petition shall be deemed to commence on the date fixed for the respondents to appear before the Court. The contention of the counsel is that this section will not apply in reference to the time limit prescribed under S.93. 6. 'Commencement of the trial' is subject matter of interpretation by the Supreme Court. In Union of India v, Madan Lai Yadav (AIR 1996 SC 1340) the Supreme Court held that the trial means an act of proving or judicial examination or determination of the issues including its own jurisdiction or authority in accordance with law or adjudging guilt or innocence of the accused including all steps necessary. The trial commences with performance of the first act or steps necessary or essential to proceed with trial (emphasis added). In O.P. Jain v. Gian Chand(AIR 1959 SC 837, a similar contention that the trial begins only when evidence is taken, was negatived by the Supreme Court. The trial commences with performance of the first act or steps necessary or essential to proceed with trial (emphasis added). In O.P. Jain v. Gian Chand(AIR 1959 SC 837, a similar contention that the trial begins only when evidence is taken, was negatived by the Supreme Court. It was held that the trial would mean the entire proceedings before the Tribunal from the reference to it by the Election Commission to the conclusion. 7. In the above circumstances, the interpretations sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The trial in this context has to commence from the date the respondent appears before the Court. This is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision cited above. Though S.93 is referable to sub-s.(3) which enables any candidate to implead himself, the same expression, viz., "commencement of trial" is used under S.99. The first act necessary or essential to proceed with the trial will be from the date fixed for respondent's appearance. For the sake of uniformity also, the same meaning should be given under S.99 also. 8. On merits also it is seen that the petitioner had not explained his absence satisfactorily. For all these reasons, I do not find any grounds warranting interference with the decision of the Election Court. Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.