JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Guridia-Kala Panchayat Samiti Dug, District Jhalawar on 31.1.2002. 2. Election petition has been filed by Smt. Labhu Bai before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jhalawar who set-aside the election of the petitioner vide its order dated 16.4.2002 holding that on recounting the petitioner secured 621 votes and the defeated candidate Smt. Labhu Bai secured 622 votes. Consequently, Smt. Labhu Bai declared elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Guridia-Kala Panchayat Samiti Dug, District Jhalawar. 3. The petitioner challenged this order dated 16.4.2002 in this writ petition and submitted that election took place on 31.1.2000 and on the same day the result was also declared by the respondents No. 2, District Election Officer and the Returning Officer and the petitioner was declared elected Sarpanch. Petitioner secured 623 votes and 100 votes were rejected declared Sarpanch, charge was taken over by her on 4th and 5th February, 2002. 4. The respondent No. 4 Labhu Bai challenged the election of the petitioner raising dispute under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1994 by way of filing election petition before the respondent No. 1. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations made in the election petition were totally vague and there was no material facts placed on record for adjudicating the dispute as required under Rule 82 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election Rules, 1994) (for short, The Rules of 1994) and in absence of contents submitted with regard to material particular/facts, election petition itself was not maintainable. 6. Learned Counsel further submits that after eight months of filing election petition, the respondent No. 4 filed an application for seeking amendment in the election petition under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code on 28.11.2000, which was vehemently opposed by the petitioner, but the amendment was allowed by the respondent No. 4-Election Tribunal and amended election petition was filed by the respondent No. 4 on 20.2.2002. 7. 7. The Election Petition was also not maintainable because it has to be filed within 30 days from the date of result of the election was declared in terms of Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 and since respondent No. 4 sought amendment after more than eight months from initial submission of the election petition and amended election petition was filed on 20.2.2001, which was after the expiry of 30 days. 8. Learned Counsel also challenged the judgment passed by the Election Tribunal on the ground that respondent No. 4 is unable to prove any documentary evidence in support of election petition and the recounting order which was passed by the Election Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of law and in the recounting 101 votes were rejected whereas earlier 100 votes were rejected and the respondent No. 4 wrongly declared elected by one vote. 9. On behalf of respondent No. 4 the learned Counsel Shri Devendra Raghav submits that the election petition was filed by the respondent No. 4 well within time. The time cannot be counted from the date of the amendment allowed by the Election Tribunal. It can only be counted from the date of filing of election petition and admittedly, the election petition which was filed by the respondent No. 4 was well within the period of 30 days. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 10.4.2002 by which Election Tribunal ordered for recounting of votes he would have challenged the same but the petitioner did not challenge the order of recounting dated 10.4.2002 and in recounting the respondent No. 4 has rightly been declared elected. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that in compliance of the order dated 16.4.2002 respondent No. 4 has already assumed charge of Sarpanch and since there is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Election Tribunal no interference is required by this Court. 12. In support of contentions the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments that there should be a specific plea in the election petition and on the contentions of the recounting he placed reliance on the judgment reported in 1993 (2) Supp. SCC 8 and and also referred Section 82 and Rule 83 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act and Rules. 13. SCC 8 and and also referred Section 82 and Rule 83 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act and Rules. 13. Heard rival submission of the parties and carefully examined the order passed by the Tribunal and material available on record and judgments referred before me. 14. In my view the petitioner should have challenged the order dated 10.4.2002 by which the learned Judge directed for recounting. As the final order dated 16.4.2002 has already been passed, the petitioner is estopped to challenge the order dated 10.4.2002. So far point of limitation is concerned, it observed that according to the rules limitation is prescribed for filing the action petition. 15. Here in the instant case election petition was filed well within limitation but amended election petition filed after prescribed limitation. Period of station cannot be counted from the date on which amended election Station has been filed. In my view, election petition filed by the respondent 4 was well within time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the dements referred by the petitioner are not applicable. 16. As a result, I find no good reason to interfere in the order impugned dated 16.4.2002.The writ petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.Petition Dismissed. *******