ORDER K.K. Lahoti, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 29-6-2006 by the S.D.O. Lanji District Balaghat in Election Petition No. 7A/89/04-05 by which the Election Tribunal has dismissed the election petition filed by the Petitioner. This order has been assailed by the Petitioner on following grounds: i) That the election Petitioner challenged the election of Respondent No. 1 by filing an election petition u/s 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 in which serious allegations were made including irregularities during counting and rejection of prayer of the Petitioner for re-counting. ii) Respondents though opposed the election petition but the Tribunal without following procedure envisaged under Rule 11 of M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) has dismissed the election petition merely on the preliminary objection without framing issues and recording evidence. iii) That in the case serious questions were involved and without extending an opportunity to the Petitioner to produce evidence in support of his contention the Election Tribunal erred in dismissing the election petition by the impugned order. Respondent No. 1 who is a returned candidate is represented by a counsel but none is appearing for her today. Shri Rahul Jain, G.A. appears for the State and made available the records of the Election Tribunal. From the perusal of the record of the Election Tribunal following facts reveal: a) Election petition was filed on 17-2-2005 and on the same date notices were issued to the Respondents. b) The Respondent in the election petition was No. 1 Smt. Vidyawati, Respondent No. 2 was Presiding Officer, Booth No. 196 and Respondent No. 3 was Presiding Officer, Booth No. 195. c) On 28-2-2005 Respondent Vidyawati appeared through her counsel. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were absent and again fresh notices were issued. On 16-3-2005 and on 30-3-2005 notices were issued to the Presiding Officer Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. On 19-4-2005, Defendants No. 2 and 3 appeared. They were supplied copies of the election petition and for the reply the case was fixed. On the same date, later on Election Tribunal fixed the case for arguments on preliminary objections. On 25-4-2005 the reply was filed by S.K. Bajpai and on 28-4-2005 reply was filed by another Presiding Officer. On 19-4-2005, Defendants No. 2 and 3 appeared. They were supplied copies of the election petition and for the reply the case was fixed. On the same date, later on Election Tribunal fixed the case for arguments on preliminary objections. On 25-4-2005 the reply was filed by S.K. Bajpai and on 28-4-2005 reply was filed by another Presiding Officer. On 11-5-2005 the Presiding Officer directed for the presence of Kotwar who was present at booth No. 196 and on the same date the preliminary arguments were heard. On next date 16-5-2005, the case was fixed for orders and on 24-6-2005, the impugned has been passed. d) Though there is no reference in the order-sheet in respect of filing of the reply by Respondent No. 1 but it is available on record and it was filed on 30-5-2005. e) In the case the Tribunal had not fixed the case for recording evidence but it appears that both, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 filed affidavit in support of their contentions along with pleadings. f) A written extract of preliminary argument is available on pages 69 and 70 of the file, which are concise statements of the preliminary arguments submitted by the parties. g) The Tribunal considered the case of the Petitioner by the order Annexure P-8 and decided the case not on preliminary objections but finally on merits repelling all the contentions of the Petitioner. This finds place in the order in detail. The procedure for the trial of the Election Tribunal is envisaged in Rule 11 of the Rules which reads thus: Procedure before the specified officer and his powers - (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits: Provided that if shall only be necessary for the specified officer to make a memorandum of the evidence of any witness examined by him. (2) The specified officer, shall have the powers which are vested in the Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the following matters: a) Discovery and inspection; b) enforcing the attendance of witness, and requiring the deposit of their expenses; c) compelling the production of document; d) examination of witnesses on oath; e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit and f) issuing commission for examination of witnesses and summoning and examining suo motu any person whose evidence, appears to him to be material. The aforesaid provision specifically provides that the enquiry in the election petition shall be as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure. But in this case after filing of the pleadings the presiding officer heard preliminary arguments and on the basis of this the election petition has been dismissed. Though in the order the tribunal has referred the evidence filed by the parties and discussed them but without extending any opportunity to the parties to cross-examine on the aforesaid affidavits. Apart from this no order was passed by the Election Tribunal in respect of filing of any evidence on affidavits by the parties. It appears that the aforesaid affidavits were filed along with the election petition and the reply of the parties and considered by the Election Tribunal while deciding the case. Such recourse was not available to the Election Tribunal as the procedure envisaged in the CPC has been made applicable to the Election Tribunal under the Rules. In the absence of this, the evidence produced by the parties along with the pleadings ought not to have considered by Election Tribunal while deciding the case of the preliminary arguments. The Election Tribunal ought to have directed the parties to produce the witness or to produce their evidence on affidavits. If the procedure for filing of the evidence on affidavits could have been followed, then the parties ought to have been allowed an opportunity to cross examine the deponent of the affidavit but in absence of this the affidavit filed along with the election petition or reply ought not to have been taken into consideration while deciding the matter. If the procedure for filing of the evidence on affidavits could have been followed, then the parties ought to have been allowed an opportunity to cross examine the deponent of the affidavit but in absence of this the affidavit filed along with the election petition or reply ought not to have been taken into consideration while deciding the matter. Preliminary objections may be considered by the Election Tribunal but the scope of preliminary objections is limited under Rule 8 of the Rules, in respect of objection relating to the presentation of election petition under Rule 3, non-furnishing of the security as required under Rule 7 of the Rules or non-impleadment of parties as required under Rule 4 of the Rules. Except these, there is no provision for hearing preliminary objection and deciding the case at preliminary stage. The Election Tribunal committed an error of jurisdiction in adopting the aforesaid procedure which is not permissible under the law. In the result the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal dated 29-6-2005 is not sustainable under the law and accordingly it is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Election Tribunal to hear and decide the election petition afresh in accordance with law. The Petitioner present herein is directed to remain present before the Election Tribunal on 20-11-2006 and file an application for restoration of the election petition. The Election Tribunal after issuing notices to the Respondents shall decide the matter in accordance with the provisions under the Act and Rules afresh. Petitioner shall be entitled for the cost of this petition from Respondent No. 1. Final Result : Dismissed