ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 25.5.2005 passed by SDO Sabalgarh, District Morena in an election petition filed under section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam. 1993. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in December. 2004 and an election petition is pending against him in the Court of SDO Sabalgarh, District Morena. In that petition, present petitioner raised preliminary objection Annexure P-3 stating that the petition be dismissed for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of rule 3(2) of the M.P. panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 1995"). According to the petitioner, rule 3(2) of the rules 1995 provides that attested copy of the documents filed by the present petitioner he supplied to the respondents. The said documents must be signed by the petitioner and in case they arc not signed the consequence is of dismissal of election petition. According to the petitioner in the present case, copies of the election petition served on him were not attested by the petitioner in the election petition and therefore for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of rule 3(2) of the Rules 1995, the election petition should be dismissed. This preliminary objection is overruled by the SDO Sabalgarh by the impugned order Annexure P-.1, hence this petition. 3. According to the petitioner, the copy of the election petition supplied to him was not duly attested as true copy by the petitioner and he has not signed the copy supplied to him. In reply to this argument, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has pointed out that the efforts made to serve the petitioner for number of times, but as the service by ordinary method was not affected, the SDO permitted him to serve the notice on the petitioner by way of affixture and the notice was affixed in pursuance of order dated 2.3.2005. Present petitioner appeared before the SDO on 22.3.2005 and on the date a copy of the petition was supplied to the petitioner, which is Annexure P-2. Present petitioner appeared before the SDO on 22.3.2005 and on the date a copy of the petition was supplied to the petitioner, which is Annexure P-2. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, copy of the election petition Annexure P-2, which is submitted by the petitioner before this Court itself shows that they are signed by respondent No.2 Subodh and is attested as true copy by his Advocate. Thus, it involves a disputed question of fact that whether a copy supplied to present petitioner was duly attested by the petitioner in the election petition or signed by him. The petitioner has not filed any copy before this Court showing that copy served was not attested, on the contrary from bare perusal of Annexure P-2, it appears that copy which is filed before this Court was duly attested by the petitioner in the election petition. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that provisions of rule 3(2) of the Rules 1995 were not complied with., on the contrary, copy Annexure P-2 shows that an attested copy was served on the petitioner as required under the rule 3(2) of the rules 1995. 4. In the result, this petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.