JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.: - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by the consent of the parties. 3. This petition is directed against the order dated 31-7-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khamgaon, in Election Petition No. 2 of 2002, rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking better particulars under Order VI, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. The petitioner filed an application for better particulars in the election petition which has been instituted by respondent No. 2 challenging the election by which the petitioner has been elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti. The said application has been rejected by the Additional District Judge on the sole ground that in view of the amendment introduced in the Civil Procedure Code to Order VI, Rule 5, which has been omitted from 1st July, 2002, the application for better particulars does not survive. 5. I have thougtfully considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. The point in controversy has been covered by the decision of this Court in the case of (Prabhakar Shamrao Bairam v. Madhukar Mahadeo Bairam)1, 2003(5) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)731 wherein it has been observed in para No. 3 and 4 as under : 3. The application which was filed by the present petitioner/original defendant was under Order VI, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, Act No. 22 of 2002, i.e. Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002, and particularly section 16 thereof deals with repeal and saving clauses. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 16, reads thus : "16. Repeal and savings. - (1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except insofar as such amendment or provisions are consistent with the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed. (2) Notwithstanding that the provisions of this Act have come into force or repeal under sub-section (1) has taken effect, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 (10 of 1897),- (a)..... (2) Notwithstanding that the provisions of this Act have come into force or repeal under sub-section (1) has taken effect, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 (10 of 1897),- (a)..... (b) the provisions of Rules 5, 15, 17 and 18 of Order VI of the First Schedule as omitted or, as the case may be, inserted or substituted by section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999(46 of 1999) and by section 7 of this Act shall not apply to in respect of any pleading filed before the commencement of section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and section 7 of this Act; 4. Clauses (b) of sub-section (2) of section 16 reproduced above clearly makes it clear the provisions of Rules 5, 15, 17 and 18 of Order VI of the First Schedule as omitted or, as the case may be, inserted or substituted by section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) and section 7 of this Act, i.e. (Amendment Act) shall not apply in respect of any pleadings filed before the commencement of section 7 of this Act. A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that since the application in question was already pending for decision before the learned Judge of the trial Court, the said application, in fact, should have been decided by the learned Judge on its own merits, treating as if so far as regards the application was concerned there was amendment to that provision. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, passing of the order dated July 22, 2002, filing the application, in view of the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code, is totally wrong and the order needs to be quashed and set aside. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated July 22, 2002, passed by the learned trial Judge is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial Judge, who shall decide the application, Exhibit P-1, on its own merits. Needless it is to state that the parties will be given due opportunities to defence their respective cases." 6. Needless it is to state that the parties will be given due opportunities to defence their respective cases." 6. In the present case, it is not disputed that the application filed by the petitioner for better particulars under Order VI, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code has not been decided on merits by the Additional District Judge. It is also not in dispute that the application was submitted on 29-4-2002 whereas the amendment in the Civil Procedure Code to Order VI, Rule 5 came into force with effect from 1st July, 2002. Therefore, by virtue of section 16 of the amending Act (Act No. 22 of 2002), the learned Additional District Judge ought to have considered the application on merits. 7. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid decision in the case of Prabhakar Shamrao Bairam, 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 213 , cited supra. In that view of the matter, it is obvious that the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, it is set aside and the matter is remitted to him for deciding the application on merits in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within one month, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs. Petition allowed. -----