JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the President of Janpad Panchayat, Ambikapur. A motion of no-confidence was brought against him and before the same could be voted, the petitioner approached this Court raising the grievance that many of the members of the Panchayat i.e. 14 in number out of 25 have incurred disqualification and ceased to hold office by virtue of S. 26(2) (c) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This Court on 11.11.97 passed an order wherein a direction was also issued that the proceedings for no-confidence motion pursuant to the impugned notice (Annexure A) shall be held but shall bot be given effect to until further orders; and it was also directed that until further order, the prescribed authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer Incharge shall conduct the affairs of the Panchayat. The petitioner was also allowed opportunity for amending the petition. On 27.11.97, this Court allowed time for filing the return. The case has come up today. The Collector, in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 1.12.97 was required to take the decision on the question in regard to the alleged disqualification of respondents No. 4 to 16, and submitted a report to this Court by way of additional return. Subsequent to this, the order was passed by the Collector on 1.1.98. A copy of the same was brought on the record and supplied to the counsel for the other side. The case was directed to be listed for final disposal in motion hearing and as such, the petition is posted before this Court today. The Collector passed the speaking order which is on the record as Annexure R-20/1 alongwith an application No. 149/w/98. The Collector has considered the question of disqualification relating to the said 14 persons and after the enquiry, gave the reasons and he came to the conclusion that no disqualification was incurred by any of the said 14 persons out of the aforesaid persons. The only submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector in his order dated 1.1.98 has mentioned at page 7 of the order that the petitioner was given information for presenting her case on 29.12.97 but she did not turn and the Collector proceeded ex parte to decide the matter. The only submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector in his order dated 1.1.98 has mentioned at page 7 of the order that the petitioner was given information for presenting her case on 29.12.97 but she did not turn and the Collector proceeded ex parte to decide the matter. On the basis of this, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she was not given proper opportunity before the Collector and as such, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the said date the petitioner could not appear as there had been bereavement in her family. Firstly, it is not a question of giving an opportunity as the record of the Panchayat is the relevant material on which the Collector was supposed to take the decision. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Collector did not see the record and had taken the decision in the absence of the record. Further, the petitioner has no right to address the Court on this aspect of the matter as he has not pleaded the thing. The learned counsel for the petitioner can be permitted to made submissions before the Court only on the things regarding which he has pleaded in the petition. It is the obligation of the learned counsel that they should not go beyond the pleadings. I find it a case sans merit and deserves to be rejected. In view of this, the petition is rejected. The interim order dated 11.11.97 staying the declaration of the result of the no-confidence motion, is vacated.