JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sayra in the elections held on 4.2.2002, in which respondent No. 1 Smt. Nazri Bai. was defeated. Aggrieved against above election, Nazri Bai filed an election petition before the District Judge, Udaipur under section 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The main ground against present petitioner was that she was not qualified to contest the election due to birth of third child on 11.3.1997, which was disqualification under sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act. The petitioner contested the election petition by submissions that third child born to her on 19.9.1995, which was much prior to cut off date 27.11.1995 and thus, she was not disqualified. The respondent No. 4, Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), after framing the issues and recording evidence, vide judgment Annx. 14 dated 30.7.2002 came to conclusion that petitioner was disqualified on 4.2.2002 and third child was born to her after the cut-off date referred above and set aside election of the petitioner. Hence this petition. 2. The point for determination before the court below as also before this Court is whether the third child was born to petitioner on 19.9.1995 or on 11.3.1997. Admittedly, a third girl child was born to the petitioner, whose name is Nirmala. According to the petitioner, she was born prior to cut off date 27.11.1995 whereas according to the respondents, she was born on 11.3.1997. In the court below, the solitary issue with regard to above fact was framed, the burden of which was on respondent No. 1, who not only examined herself as PW 1 but also one Van Singh as PW 2 and exhibited Annx. 2, an entry made in the register of Primary Health Center. On the contrary, present petitioner & defendant examined herself only. However, after closure of the evidence, petitioner submitted an application dated 27.7.2002 (Annx. 13) before the court below to take on record, which is a letter issued by the Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Sayra, to the effect that during the year 1995-2000, according to record of the dispensary, no child was born to Movni Bai wife of Tej Singh. Above document was not taken on record by the court below on the ground that it has been submitted belatedly. 3. In this court also, petitioner has submitted Annx. Above document was not taken on record by the court below on the ground that it has been submitted belatedly. 3. In this court also, petitioner has submitted Annx. 5, a certificate issued on 29.1.2000, showing that a girl child was born to petitioner on 19.9.1995. Both the learned counsel relied on some authorities. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 5. It is admitted fact that a girl child was born to the petitioner, which was third child to her. What is to be proved was whether this third child was born prior to or after the cut off date 27.11.1995. At the time of submitting nomination form on 3.2.2000 the respondent No. 1 Nazri Bai raised objection before the Returning Officer (respondent No. 3) saying that Movni Bal was disqualified as third child was born to her after the cut-off date. The above objection did not found favour with the Returning Officer. Subsequently, immediately after the elections, an election petition was field before the court below by respondent No. 1. In the court below, petitioner's case was that she delivered third child on 19.9.1995, at her own house, which was delivered by one Nurse Tara. However, in the court below, petitioner examined herself only and Nurse Tara was not examined. A certificate issued by Nurse Tara was produced in the court below on the date of pronouncement of the judgment on 30.7.2002. Such a certificate even though may have been filed at the time of pronouncement of the judgment, will have no relevance unless and until it has some evidentiary value. The certificate was issued by Nurse Tara, who should have been examined in the court to prove contention of the petitioner that third child was delivered to her at her own house by Tara on 19.9.1995. 6. On one hand there was solitary evidence of petitioner as DW 1 and on other hand, there were evidence of PW 1 Nazri Bai and PW 2 Van Singh, supported by Annx. 2, which was prepared by the Primary Health Center, Sayra, under some circular issued much prior to date of birth to third child to the petitioner. 7. The court below has candidly discussed the evidence available on the file and came to conclusion that the third child was born to the petitioner after the cut off date. 8. 2, which was prepared by the Primary Health Center, Sayra, under some circular issued much prior to date of birth to third child to the petitioner. 7. The court below has candidly discussed the evidence available on the file and came to conclusion that the third child was born to the petitioner after the cut off date. 8. During the court of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. This Court while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can not interfere in the findings of the court below unless and until it is shown that court below has committed a material irregularity or its appreciation of evidence tacks coherence or it is based on unwarranted assumptions & presumptions. When respondent No. 1 has, even at the time of filing of the nomination form raised objection before the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner was disqualified due to birth of third child to her after the cut off date and when same has been rejected by. the Returning Officer, without mentioning any cogent reason and when immediately thereafter respondent No. 1 filed election petition before the court below; it was obligatory on the part of petitioner to have specifically come with plea that the girl child was born to her in her own house prior to the cut off date. Had the third child been delivered to her through Nurse Tara, she should have examined her before the court below. There being ocular testimony of petitioner vis-s-vis ocular testimony of respondent No. 1 supported by Van Singh, not related to respondent No. 1 and also supported by documentary evidence Annx. 2; the court below rightly concluded that a third girl child was born to the petitioner after the cut off date. Had there been any contrary evidence available with the petitioner, ocular or documentary, same could have been produced before the court below. 9. Annx. 5 a certificate dated 29.1.2000, has no evidentiary value because information of the girl child born to petitioner was given to Birth & Death Registration office on 29.1.2000, that too by some Nahar Singh, not related to the petitioner and upon order of the SDM. 9. Annx. 5 a certificate dated 29.1.2000, has no evidentiary value because information of the girl child born to petitioner was given to Birth & Death Registration office on 29.1.2000, that too by some Nahar Singh, not related to the petitioner and upon order of the SDM. It is just possible that petitioner may have procured the order from the SDM a few days prior to filing of the nomination form, apprehending that if victorious, the defeated candidate may challenge her election on the ground of third child. 10. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same hereby stands dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******