JUDGMENT (Per B. Chandra Kumar, J.) This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order, dated 23-03-2009 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3384 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the order, dated 17-02-2009 in E.O.P.No.7 of 2006 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal under the A.P. Panchayatiraj Act, 1994, Yelamanchili (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), was confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Appellant herein respondents 2 to 7 contested in the election for the post of Sarpanch (President) of Gram Panchayat, Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam District held on 02-08-2006. The Appellant herein has secured an majority of 106 votes and thus the respondent 2 to 7 were unsuccessful. No written objection were filed demanding recounting of votes. The results were declared and the appellant was declared as winning candidate. The second respondent herein filed Election O.P.No.7 of 2006 before the Tribunal praying for a decree and Judgment in his favour and against the Appellant for recounting of the votes and for declaration that the action of the Election Officer in declaring that the Appellant has won the election to the post of Sarpanch of the village as illegal and consequently to declare him as duly elected candidate to the said post and for costs. 3. The allegations of the second respondent in the election petition were summed up by the Tribunal at para-23 of its order as under: (1) The counting process was not commenced till 4.00 p.m. even though the schedule time is 2.00 p.m. on 2.8.2006. (2) The counting staff made several interruptions in the process of counting. (3) The counting staff was clearly won over by the 1" respondent, his men and the local M.L.A. of Payakaraopeta Assembly Constituency and the said M.L.A surprisingly made sudden and surprising visit at the scene of counting at 3.00 a.m. on 3.8.2006 and pressurized the election authority to make declaration of the election of R.1 to the office of Sarpanch of the said Panchayat by playing dominating role even by crossing the fence at the counting limits. (4) At about 9.00 pm on 2.8.2006 the counting personnel irresponsibly staged a dharna and unduly abstained from discharging their duties for their demand of additional D.A. and night meals etc ., (5) The counting staff leisurely restarted the counting from 12 mid night 265 during which period, 25 ballot bundles of the President election left opened and unattended and uncovered and despite the protest of the election petitioner on this point, the counting went on from 12 mid night to 3.00 a.m. on 3.8.2006. (6) As a matter of fact, the election petitioner is entitled for six counting tables. Initially though six tables were there upto 4.00 p.m. on 2.8.2006, but due to influence of the local M.L.A. (Telugu Desam Party MLA), the election authority allowed him to field only four counting agents. (7) The counting personnel at table-1 and table-4 started pretending that they are over powered by their fatigue and drowsiness and under the cover of the same started doing many mistakes in placing his valid vote in the trays of other candidates. (8) Added to his on the day of counting, there was a storm with moderate to heavy rain with heavy gales and there was power failure three times for more than 15 to 20 minutes at each time and when the agents of the election petitioner pointed the mistakes, the agents of R.1 overpowered them. There is no alternative lighting arrangements during power failure. (9) The agents of the election petitioner informed him that in his vote's bundle they placed the vote of R.1 on the outer covering ballot to make show that the bundle does belongs to R.1 and put such bundles in R.1 's tray and when his agents raised objections, they pretended tracing and traced only one bundle as against their bundles that are so mixed and corrected that mistake and from that bundle they separated the vote of R.1 and placed it in its right tray and they have not corrected the similar mistake with the other three bundles. 10. The votes were not subjected to find verification. At the end of the rounds they are informed that there are only 342 invalids, but surprisingly they made a final tally of the invalid ballots as 563. 11. At the same time they have improperly validated 22 (twenty two) votes of R.1. 12. 10. The votes were not subjected to find verification. At the end of the rounds they are informed that there are only 342 invalids, but surprisingly they made a final tally of the invalid ballots as 563. 11. At the same time they have improperly validated 22 (twenty two) votes of R.1. 12. The final tally of the votes as R.1 polled 3392, that the election petitioner got 3286, R.2 got 1911, R.3 got 1947, RA got 127, R.5 got 141 and R.6 got 66 votes and that 563 are the invalid votes which is not correct and it is a made up figures. 13. The election petitioner demanded for the recounting of the votes. The local M.L.A. entered the counting station and had talk to the counting officer privately. On that, the election petitioner raised a protest. The Election Officer has not heeded his protest. He colluded with them. And as to the dictations of the local M.L.A, he prepared the declaration forms and unduly and wrongly declared R.1 as elected. 4. The Appellant herein filed counter denying the allegations made by the second respondent. According to the Appellant, the entire election process held as per the Schedule and Rules in force and that the election authorities discharged their duties properly and without any influence by anyone. The specific case of the Appellant is that neither the second respondent nor the local MLA ever interfered in the election in any manner and the second respondent could not digest his defeat and falsely created all the allegations. He denied the allegation that the votes polled for the presidential candidates in the six wards were separated and bundled into ballots of 25 bundles but not counted. It is also denied that 25 ballot bundles of the president election were left opened and left unattended, uncovered despite the protest of the agents of the second respondent. The Appellant also denied the allegation that pretending overstraining, the counting personnel failed to discharge their duties properly and the counting personnel at table-1 and table-4, who did their duties previously elsewhere, stated pretending that they are overpowered by their fatigue and drowsiness and under the cover of the same started doing many mistakes in placing the valid votes of the second respondent in the trays of other candidates. It is also denied that when the second respondent's agent at table No.-1 raised his objections, the officials pretended tracing, and traced only one bundle as against four bundles that were so mixed and corrected that mistake and without correcting the similar mistake in respect of other three bundles. 5. The other allegations such as agents of the appellant were allowed to come to the counting place and tables, and that the local MLA visited the counting place and allegedly influencing the counting personnel and forcing the election officer to declare that the appellant was elected etc. have also been denied. 6. The third respondent filed counter and made almost the same allegations as made by the second respondent. 7. The fourth respondent also made similar allegations. It is further alleged by the fourth respondent that some of the ballots were scattered on the floor and that he picked up one ballot and tried to show to the returning officer left the place without noticing the same. 8. R-6 adopted the counters filed by R-3 and R-4. 9. The second respondent himself was examined as PW-1 and PWs.2 to 6 were examined on his behalf and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. The appellant herein was examined as DW-1 and Exs.B-1 and X-1 were marked on his behalf. 10. After the evidence was closed, the second respondent filed LA.No.1550 of 2007 for reopening the matter, LA.No.1551 of 2007 for adding respondents 7 to 9, IANo.1552 of 2007 for recounting of votes and LA.No.1553 of 2007 for exhibiting EX.A-4, video disk. The Tribunal allowed LA.Nos.1550 and 1552 of 2007. However, I.A.No.1551 of 2007 and LA.No.1553 of 2007 were dismissed. A common order was passed in those LAs. Challenging the orders passed in I.A.No.1552 of 2007, C.R.P. NO.5555 of 2007 was filed before the High Court of AP and learned single Judge of this Court set aside the order in LA.No.1552 of 2007 and allowed the C.R.P. However, a direction was given to the Tribunal to decide the matter in accordance with law inclusive of the relief relating to recounting which had been prayed for in the main Election O.P. 11. The Tribunal by its order, dated 17-02-2009, allowed Election a.p.No.7 of 2006 by holding that absolutely there is no corroborative oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the first respondent (appellant herein) to disprove the contentions of the petitioner (2nd respondent herein). The Tribunal by its order, dated 17-02-2009, allowed Election a.p.No.7 of 2006 by holding that absolutely there is no corroborative oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the first respondent (appellant herein) to disprove the contentions of the petitioner (2nd respondent herein). The Tribunal further held that: "Moreover, the remaining respondents i.e., R.3, R.4 and R.6 strongly supported the averments of the petition by way of filing counter." The Tribunal also held that: "In this case, the remaining contesting respondents i.e. R3, R4 and R6 filed their respective counters pointing out the irregularities as are pleaded in the election petition. R3, R4 and R6 all in one voice convincingly and corroboratively contended about the interference of local Telugu Desam Party MLA into the counting station along with his hired men and supporters and overpowering everyone and on his entry more than hundred people made forcible entry into the counting place and no official tried to prevent it." 12. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Appellant herein filed W.P.No.3384 of 2009 before this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition confirming the orders passed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. 13. In the writ petition, the learned single Judge relied on Michael B. Fernandes v. C.K. Jaffer Sharief and others wherein it was held that the returning officer and the Chief Electoral Officer need not be impleaded as party-respondents in the election petition even if it is alleged that they have not complied with the provisions of Conduct of Election Rules and the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India. 14. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the second respondent herein made vague• and bald allegations and no specific allegations were made such as at which table, in which round and in whose presence the irregularities were committed. It is further submitted that if at all any such irregularities were, in fact, committed, nothing prevented the second respondent from giving a written complaint to the election officers. He further submitted that recounting should not be ordered for mere asking and that the law has been well settled on this aspect. It is further submitted that if at all any such irregularities were, in fact, committed, nothing prevented the second respondent from giving a written complaint to the election officers. He further submitted that recounting should not be ordered for mere asking and that the law has been well settled on this aspect. It is his submission that the Judgment relied on by the learned single Judge of this Court in Michael B. Fernandes, case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that in this case specific allegations have been made against the returning officer and other counting staff that they colluded with the appellant and that under the influence of the local MLA, they declared the result as if the appellant won the election, and when specific allegation of collusion is made, the second respondent ought to have made the returning officer as party to the Election O.P. It is also submitted that neither the returning officer was summoned nor he was examined and no opportunity was given to the returning officer and the counting staff to deny the allegations made against them. When mala tides have been attributed and specific allegation that the returning officer is won over by the appellant is made, then the petition is bad for not making the returning officer as party to the petition. 15. The learned counsel has also referred to the Election Petition, wherein specific allegations have been made against the Election Officer, and argued that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the Election Petition for non-joinder of necessary party. It is further submitted that admittedly no written complaint or request was made at any stage of the counting till the election result was declared. It is further submitted that the allegation that the local M LA visited the counting place and influenced the returning officer etc. are absolutely false. It is further submitted that even according to the second respondent, the counting process was completed by 3-00 a.m. and that the local MLA visited the counting place after 3-00 a.m. and then left the place and that the election results were announced at 5-00 or 5-30 a.m. and no counting process continued after the visit of the MLA, therefore, the visit of MLA would not have any effect on the result of the election. It is further submitted that the other allegations that the election staff demanded additional DA or arrangement for food etc. or that there was rain or failure of electricity etc are false and even if it is assumed that some of them are true, they have no effect on the counting process or in the result of the election and those are all omnibus and vague allegations and that all the candidates would be effected by those circumstances and no one would have any specific advantage of the same. It is further argued that since no appeal is provided against the order of the Election Tribunal, the High Court is empowered to consider whether the evidence on record is sufficient or not and whether the findings are not based on the evidence and whether they are perverse. It is further argued that the Tribunal did not frame any issues or points for consideration and the findings of the Tribunal are not based on proper appreciation of evidence and that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the averments of the other respondents themselves corroborated the case of the second respondent. It is further argued that the Tribunal went wrong in treating the pleadings and evidence as one and the same and failed to appreciate that mere pleadings have no value in the absence of evidence substantiating the same. It is vehemently argued that the allegations of the second respondent are not only vague, but afterthought and the Tribunal failed to consider that if at all the alleged irregularities had taken place or that the officers colluded with the appellant, the second respondent or his counting agents would have certainly filed written application for recounting and they would have immediately reported the matter to the superior authorities. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court in the writ petition cannot sustain and the same are liable to be set aside. 16. The learned counsel for the Appellant relied on the following decisions: M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy, Sadhu Singh v. Darshan Singh, Mahendra Pal v. Shri Ram Dass Malanger and others, P.K.K. Shamsudee v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and others, P.H. Pujar v. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa and Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia. 17. 16. The learned counsel for the Appellant relied on the following decisions: M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy, Sadhu Singh v. Darshan Singh, Mahendra Pal v. Shri Ram Dass Malanger and others, P.K.K. Shamsudee v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and others, P.H. Pujar v. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa and Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia. 17. The learned counsel for the second respondent vehemently argued that if at all the appellant secured majority of votes and no irregularities have been committed in the counting process, there is no need for the appellant to oppose recounting. It is further submitted that the second respondent is seeking only recounting of votes and is not asking to set aside the election result before recounting and no prejudice will be caused to the appellant or to anyone if the votes are recounted. It is further submitted that the ballots were bundled and each bundle contained 25 ballots and the counting officers had put one vote of appellant on the top of the bundle of votes of the second respondent and in all four such bundles of the second respondent were mixed in the bundles of appellant and thus the election staff in collusion with the appellant indulged in malpractices and illegally declared the appellant as winning candidate. His main submission is that there is no mandatory Rule that the Election Officer should be made as party and when all the other candidates are made as parties, the Rule is complied, It is also his submission that the appellant did not make any plea in his counter that the election petition is bad for non-joinder of Election Officer. Thus his submission is that when the appellant has not taken such a plea in his counter, he shall not take the same subsequently, It is further submitted that specific allegations have been made and the second respondent adduced required evidence and the same was rightly accepted by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court in the writ petition, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 18. In the light of the rival contentions of both parties, the points arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court is liable to be set aside? 2. 18. In the light of the rival contentions of both parties, the points arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court is liable to be set aside? 2. Whether the Tribunal went wrong in concluding that the allegations made by the second respondent are supported by the averments of the other respondents in their respective counters? 3, Whether the Election Petition is bad for non-joinder of the Election Officer? POINT NO.1 : 19. As far as the present Election Petition is concerned, the following principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court appears to be kept in mind before discussing the merits of the case: 20. In M. Chinnasamy's case (2 supra), the Supreme Court held as follows: "The necessity of "maintaining the secrecy of ballot papers" should be kept in view before a re-counting is directed to be made. A direction for recounting shall not be issued only because the margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner is narrow." 21. The following decisions have been referred in M. Chinnasamy's case (2 supra), which throw some light on the principles to be followed in deciding the election petitions: In Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh the Supreme Court held that: "A cryptic application claiming recount was made by the petitioner-respondent before the Returning Officer. No details of any kind were given in the said application. Not even a single instance showing any irregularity or illegality in the counting was brought to the notice of the returning Officer. We are of the view when there was no contemporaneous evidence to show any irregularity or illegality in the counting. Ordinarily, it would not be proper to order recount on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition. We have been taken through the pleadings in the election petition. We are satisfied that the grounds urged in the election petition do not justify for ordering recount and allowing inspection of the ballot papers. It is settled proposition of law that the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly. An order of recount cannot be granted as a matter of course. We are satisfied that the grounds urged in the election petition do not justify for ordering recount and allowing inspection of the ballot papers. It is settled proposition of law that the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly. An order of recount cannot be granted as a matter of course. The secrecy of the ballot papers has to be maintained and only when the High Court is satisfied on the basis of material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous evidence that the recount can be ordered." In P.H. Pujar's case (6 supra), the Supreme Court held that: "The petitioner seeking re-count should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of votes or improper rejection of valid votes. If only the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the said allegations can it order re-count of votes. Secrecy of ballot has always been considered sacrosanct in a democratic process of election and it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare allegations of illegality and irregularity in counting." 22. Rule 3 (ii) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals In Respect Of Gram Panchayats, Mandai Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 is as follows: "3 (ii) The petition shall contain a statement in concise form, the material facts on which the petitioner relies and the particulars of any corrupt practices which he alleges and shall, where necessary, be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively. It shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner prescribed for verification of pleadings in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." Thus the particulars of corrupt practices have to be given. Material facts and particulars as far as this case means specific allegations giving the particulars of tables, rounds in which irregularities were noticed should be mentioned. If there is no protest and the candidates and their agents kept quite till the results are declared, subsequent allegations may be doubted as afterthought allegations. Recounting of votes cannot be ordered merely because no prejudice would be caused to the winning candidate. 23. The learned counsel for the second respondent vehemently contended that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant by ordering recounting and that the appellant should not object for the same if he is confident of winning the election. Recounting of votes cannot be ordered merely because no prejudice would be caused to the winning candidate. 23. The learned counsel for the second respondent vehemently contended that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant by ordering recounting and that the appellant should not object for the same if he is confident of winning the election. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnasamy's case (2 supra) with reference to the question of prejudice observed as follows: "The question of prejudice of the election petitioner would not be a relevant factor keeping in view the constitutional and statutory scheme involving holding of an election and the consequences emanating from the direction of re-counting which may lead to identification of voters as the same is not at all desirable." 24. The Election Tribunal mainly referred to the evidence of the appellant and held that the appellant has not let in any satisfactory evidence to counter the allegations of the second respondent. The settled legal position is that it is for the election petitioner to substantiate the allegations made by him. His case would stand or fall on the basis of the evidence let in by him. He cannot depend on the weakness of the opposite party. In P.K.K. Shamsudee v. K.A. M.Mappillai Mohindeen and others, it was held as follows: "An order of recount of votes must stand or fall on the nature of the averments made and the evidence adduced before the order of recount is made and not from the results emanating from the recount of votes.' 25. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that no specific allegations have been made in the petition and unless specific allegations with all particulars have been made in the petition and evidence is let in to prove the same, no recounting can be ordered. In support of his contention, he relied on M Chinnasamy's case (2 supra), wherein the Supreme Court referred the case in P.H. Pujar's case (6 supra), wherein it was held that: "The petitioner seeking re-count should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of votes or improper rejection of valid votes. If only the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the said allegations can it order re-count at votes. If only the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the said allegations can it order re-count at votes. Secrecy of ballot has always been considered sacrosanct in a democratic process of election and it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare allegations of illegality and irregularity in counting." 26. In R. Narayanan v. S. Semmalal it was held that: "Unless the affected candidate is able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests of justice, a tribunal or court should not order the re-count of votes." 27. With regard to the appreciation of evidence, on the basis of the pleadings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "It is now well-settled principle of law that evidence adduced beyond the pleadings would not be admissible nor can any evidence be permitted to be adduced which is at variance with the pleadings. The Court at a later stage of the trial as also the appellate court having regard to the rule of pleadings would be entitled to reject the evidence wherefor there does not exist any pleadings." 28. In the light of the above discussion, let us see the pleadings and evidence in the case on hand. The allegations in the petition, which requires serious consideration, are as follows: (1) The counting staff leisurely restarted the counting from 12 mid night during which period, 25 ballot bundles of the President election were left opened and unattended and uncovered despite the protest of the election petitioner on this point, the counting went on from 12 mid night to 3.00 a.m. on 3.8.2006. (2) Initially there were six tables and the election authority allowed only four agents of the second respondent as against the six agents of the appellant and agent passes given on waste papers. (2) Initially there were six tables and the election authority allowed only four agents of the second respondent as against the six agents of the appellant and agent passes given on waste papers. (3) The agents of the election petitioner informed him that in his vote's bundle they placed the vote of R.1 on the outer covering ballot to make show that the bundle does belongs to R.1 and put such bundles in R.1 's tray and when his agents raised objections, they pretended tracing and traced only one bundle as against their bundles that are so mixed and corrected that mistake and from that bundle they separated the vote of R.1 and placed it in its right tray and they have not corrected the similar mistake with the other three bundles. (4) The votes were not subjected to find verification. At the end of the rounds they are informed that there are only 342 invalids, but surprisingly they made a final tally of the invalid ballots as 563. (5) At the same time they have improperly validated 22 (twenty two) votes of R.1. 29. The second respondent herein (Petitioner in E.O.P.) has been examined as PW-1. In the chief affidavit, he has referred the above allegations. However, he has admitted in the cross-examination that nearly 30 to 40 election officers participated in the election process at the time of counting and the counting was conducted in the school room measuring 20 x 20 feet. He has also admitted that the agents for three contestants were present at the time of counting. He has specifically admitted that he did not mention specific overt acts of the election officers individually and that he does not know whether other contestants gave written objections to the election officers or not. He has also admitted that he did not mention specific overt acts of the agents of the first respondent (appellant herein) at the time of counting. He further admitted that himself or his agents did not give any written objections to the election officers at any stage. 30. PW-2, Ernaki Venkata Joga Rao, is the election agent of the second respondent (petitioner in E.O.P). He alleges that when his agents pointed out mistakes, the agents of the first respondent (Appellant herein) overpowered them. He further admitted that himself or his agents did not give any written objections to the election officers at any stage. 30. PW-2, Ernaki Venkata Joga Rao, is the election agent of the second respondent (petitioner in E.O.P). He alleges that when his agents pointed out mistakes, the agents of the first respondent (Appellant herein) overpowered them. However, PW-2 admitted that he did not give any written objections for making interruptions by the counting staff in the process of counting. He has also admitted that he cannot give specific overt acts of the election officers as well as counting agents. 31. PW-3, brother of PW-1, reiterated all the allegations made by the second respondent. He claims to have given written objections signed by the second respondent in the end to the counting officer, but this is not the case of second respondent. Either in the evidence or in his pleadings he never stated that written objections were given to the election authority. However, PW-3 also admitted in the cross examination that he cannot give the particulars of the elections officers who were present at the respective tables at the time of counting and that he does not know who acted as agent for whom and that he cannot say the individual acts of the election officers with regard to the irregularities. 32. PW-4 is the journalist of Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily. He says that alter the completion of third round counting, the second respondent raised objections by alleging that the votes were misplaced from one candidate to other candidate and the local MLA has come to the spot and that he has photographed him. 33. PW-5 is a Lab Assistant, who speaks about the digital camera chip and downloading of the data in the computer system. 34. PW-6, K. Apparao, is an agent of the second respondent. He has also made similar allegations in his chief affidavit. But, in the cross-examination, he too admitted that he did not give any written objections to the election officers till the end. He has also admitted that he did not inform the higher authorities by issuing telegram. He further deposed that he cannot give as to how many votes counted as invalid for each contestant and that he knows the names of only two agents out of the agents who were present on behalf of the six contestants. 35. He has also admitted that he did not inform the higher authorities by issuing telegram. He further deposed that he cannot give as to how many votes counted as invalid for each contestant and that he knows the names of only two agents out of the agents who were present on behalf of the six contestants. 35. The appellant has been examined as RW-1. As seen from the above evidence, it is clear that no written objections have been made till the declaration of the election results. It has to be seen that the contestants and their agents will be present at the time of counting and watch the proceedings from the time of opening ballot boxes till entire proceedings are concluded. The contestants and their agents have the opportunity of watching all the votes and bundling of votes. Whenever a mistake is noticed, the agents raise objections and the counting staff and, if necessary, election authority would verify the same and rectify the mistake. They can inspect the rejected votes and demand recount. The allegation that 25 ballot bundles of the President election were left opened and unattended and uncovered despite the protest of the election petitioner appears to be unnatural and improbable. Nobody particularly the candidate or his agent would not keep quiet if 25 ballot bundles are left opened and unattended. They would not have participated in the counting process if the allegation is true. The very fact that they continued to participate in counting belies the allegation. The other allegation is that four bundles of votes in favour of the second respondent were mixed in the vote bundles of the appellant by placing one vote of the appellant on the top of each bundle. The evidence of the second respondent and his agents from the chief examination itself clearly go to show that when they raised oral objection, the counting officers verified the bundles, but traced only one bundle and corrected the mistake. The allegation of the second respondent is that other three similar bundles were not traced. If at all this version is true, the second respondent and his agents would have demanded the election officer to make further search for the remaining three bundles. Admittedly after noticing one bundle, the counting process continued, which means unless the second respondent and his agents were satisfied, the counting process would not have been continued. 36. If at all this version is true, the second respondent and his agents would have demanded the election officer to make further search for the remaining three bundles. Admittedly after noticing one bundle, the counting process continued, which means unless the second respondent and his agents were satisfied, the counting process would not have been continued. 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai observed as follows: "9. There can therefore be no doubt that at every stage in the process of scrutiny and counting of votes the candidate or his agents have an opportunity of remaining present at the counting of votes, watching the proceedings of the returning officer, inspecting any rejected votes, and to demand a re-count. Therefore a candidate who seeks to challenge an election on the ground the there has been improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes at the time of counting, has ample opportunity of acquainting himself with the manner in which the ballot boxes were scrutinized and opened, and the votes were counted. He has also opportunity of inspecting rejected ballot papers, and of demanding a re-count. It is in the light of the provisions of S. 83(1) which require a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and to the opportunity which a defeated candidate had at the time of counting, of watching and of claiming are-count that the application inspection must be considered." 37. As far as the allegations i.e., delay in commencement of counting at about 4-00 p.m. or that counting personnel demanded night meals and additional DA or that the counting recommenced after about midnight etc. are concerned, we do not consider how these aspects cause prejudice to the contestants. The second respondent did not make the specific allegations with all particulars in the petition. Moreover PW-1 admitted that if by 1-00 p.m. voters are present in the premises they will be allowed to vote. He has also admitted that he did not raise any objection for the delay in commencement of voting. As far as the above issues are concerned, the situation would be same for all the contesting candidates and if the counting process commenced late, it is for all candidates, but not for one candidate. Similarly the allegations that there was rain or failure of electricity or storm etc. As far as the above issues are concerned, the situation would be same for all the contesting candidates and if the counting process commenced late, it is for all candidates, but not for one candidate. Similarly the allegations that there was rain or failure of electricity or storm etc. are concerned, we feel that they do not require any serious consideration because the situation would be same for all the candidates. As far as the allegation of misplacing or mixing the bundles of one candidate into the bundles of other candidates is concerned, this allegation also lacks particulars such as at which table and in which round the irregularities were noticed. The particulars of the agents, who pointed out these irregulanties, and the names of the election officers involved in the irregularities have not been mentioned. Therefore, even these allegations appear to be general and vague in nature and it is very clear that neither the particulars in relation to the alleged irregulanties nor the names of the counting agents or staff involved find place in the averments of the petition or in the evidence adduced by the second respondent. The natural conduct of the second respondent and his agents, in all probabilities would be to make vehement protest as and when they noticed the irregularities. Normally further counting will not be continued unless the contesting candidates and their agents agree for the same. It is not the case of the second respondent and his agents that they boycotted the further counting or that they made any complaint to the superior authorities or that they gave a written complaint with all particulars to the elections officers. Admittedly, no written application was given for recounting of votes. If specific allegations are made and particulars are given, the authorities would have recounted the votes of that table or that round regarding which specific demand is made. Recount of votes need not be ordered in a case where specific overt acts with all the particulars of the round and the tables at which the irregularities are noticed have not been given, particularly when entire process is completed without any written objections. Therefore, we are of the view that the second respondent failed to prove the allegations made by him. Therefore, we are of the view that the second respondent failed to prove the allegations made by him. In Smt. Ram Rati v. Saroj Devi and others while dealing with election petition under M.P. Panchayat Elections Rules, 1994 and Rule 76 of the said Rules, it was held that 1he appellant was duly elected. Election petition by respondent that election was not properly conducted and an application for recounting was made, but was not done. The Tribunal directed recounting which was affirmed by High Court the Rule mandates upon candidate or his agent to make an application in writing giving reasons in support thereof seeking recounting. No such application had been made on the date of declaration of results. The Tribunal committed manifest error in directing recounting. In the light of the mandatory language of Rule 76 of the Rules, it is incumbent upon a candidate or an agent, if the candidate was not present, to make an application in writing and give reasons in support thereof, while seeking recounting. If it is not done, then the Tribunal or the court is not empowered to direct recounting even after adduction of evidence and consideration of the alleged irregularities in the counting. The essential condition precedent is that an application in writing should be made and the Returning Officer should pass an order with reasons in support thereof either to recall the order of otherwise, the writing and the fact that the officer had not passed any order in writing would indicate that the respondent had not made any application. Obviously, some subsequent manipulation, as contended by the appellant, would have taken place, as a result of which the election petition was filed and the arguments were addressed for recounting. It is settled legal position that secrecy of ballot should not be breached and as afar as possible, the secrecy of ballot should be maintained. In rare cases, the Tribunal or the Court is required to order recount, that too on giving satisfactory grounds for recounting. In view of the fact that the rule itself provides that, as soon as the result of the election is announced, an application in writing must be made at the first instance and the fact that no such application has been placed before the court indicate that no such application had made on the date of the declaration of the result. The allegation that an application having been made, would be an after thought. The Tribunal, therefore, committed manifest error in directing recount." 38. As far as the allegation of local MLA visiting the counting place and influencing the election officer is concerned, this also does not seem to be a valid ground. According to PW-1, the counting restarted at about 12-00 mid night and continued upto 3-00 a.m., which means by 3-00 a.m. the counting process was completed. The allegation of the second respondent is that the local MLA with his supporters came to the counting place at about 3-00 a.m. and influenced the election authority to declare the results. It is not the allegation of the second respondent that after the visit of the local MLA further counting had taken place. He has also admitted in the cross-examination that the election result was declared approximately by 5-00 or 5-30 a.m.. When the entire counting process was completed by 3-00 a.m., the visit of the local MLA to the counting place may not have any effect on the result of the elections because by 3-00 a.m. itself the parties knew their position. It has to be seen that even after the visit of the local MLA, who alleges to have influenced the election officer and under whose influence the election officer alleged to have prepared forms and then declared results, no written complaint was made till the election result was declared. Of course it is not necessary that in each and every case written complaint should be given or a written request for recounting should be made, but when collusion is alleged and if the election officers and the election staff were deliberately supporting one candidate, then in all probabilities the other candidates would not have kept quite and would have made a strong protest and also lodged a written complaint or made demand for recounting of votes under Rule 35 of the Panchayat Raj Act. In P.H. Pujar's case (6 supra), the Apex Court observed that recount should be ordered in rare cases on the basis of specific allegations in the pleadings in the election petition and proof of improper acceptance of votes or improper rejection of valid votes. It should not be casually ordered on mere ipse dixit of the election petitioner and merely because margin of defeat of the petitioner is meagre. 39. It should not be casually ordered on mere ipse dixit of the election petitioner and merely because margin of defeat of the petitioner is meagre. 39. As far as the allegation of initially informing that there was only 342 invalid votes, but subsequently a final tally of the invalid votes was informed as 563 is concerned, since no documentary evidence has been adduced to substantiate the same, it needs no consideration. 40. In the absence of specific allegations with all material particulars, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the Election Petition. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the findings of the Election Tribunal are not based on record and are perverse and liable to be set aside and consequently, the impugned order, dated 23-03-2009 in W.P.No.3384 of 2009 is also liable to be set aside. POINT NO.2: 41. Alter both the parties file their pleadings, the stage of framing issues will arise. The stage of framing issues is an important one because the scope of the trial and the real dispute between the parties will be determined and the parties have to lead evidence on the controversies covered by the issues and pleadings. No evidence on controversies not covered by issues and pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of the issues the burden of proving which lies on him. Proper foundation has to be laid in the pleadings by setting out the material facts and later the pleadings have to be proved by adducing requisite evidence. Specific allegations have to be made and proved. Mere pleadings cannot be taken as evidence, unless the party adduces oral or documentary evidence and the Court accepts the same and on analyzing such evidence, holds that the fact is proved. Therefore, mere allegations by one party cannot be taken as corroborative evidence. Therefore, the pleadings of one party cannot be treated as corroborative evidence of the pleadings of other party though they make similar pleadings. 42. As discussed earlier, the Election Tribunal failed to appreciate the difference between pleadings and evidence. The averments of the other respondents in the counter may contain similar allegations as made by the second respondent. The averments remain averments until they are substantiated and proved by the evidence. 42. As discussed earlier, the Election Tribunal failed to appreciate the difference between pleadings and evidence. The averments of the other respondents in the counter may contain similar allegations as made by the second respondent. The averments remain averments until they are substantiated and proved by the evidence. The Tribunal made the following observation: "In this case, the remaining contesting respondents i.e. R3, R4 and R6 filed their respective counters pointing out the irregularities as are pleaded in the election petition. R3, R4 and R6 all in one voice convincingly and corroboratively contended about the interference of local Telugu Desam Party MLA into the counting station along with his hired men and supporters and overpowering everyone and on his entry more than hundred people made forcible entry into the counting place and no official tried to prevent it." 43. In TH. Musthaffa v. M.P. Varghese the Supreme Court held that: "When the pleadings do not contain the material facts and necessary particulars, any amount of evidence would be insufficient." 44. The other respondents have also lost the election. Apparently, they are interested and naturally, they make allegations against the winning candidate. Therefore, the Election Tribunal ought not have held that the averments of the other respondents are corroborating the averments of the second respondent. Thus the Tribunal committed manifest error in reaching it's findings. 45. In Makhan Lal Bangal's case (7 supra), it is held as follows: "An election petition is like a civil trial. The stage of framing the issues is an important one inasmuch as on that day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on which the trial shall proceed excluding diversions and departures therefrom. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other should form the subject of a distinct issue. An obligation is cast on the court to read the plaint/petition and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the counsel for the parties, the material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. The evidence shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him. The evidence shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceeding issue wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided." In the case on hand, each one of the corrupt practices alleged by the second respondent and denied by the appellant should have formed the subject matter of a distinct issue. Thus the Tribunal committed another manifest error in not framing the issues. However, both the parties proceeded with the case and adduced evidence without raising any objection with the full knowledge of the allegations and counter allegations made in the pleadings. None of the parties has complained of prejudice. Though non-framing of the issues is a defect, the order of the Tribunal cannot be set aside on this ground. POINT NO.3: 46. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since specific allegations have been made against the election officer, he should have been made as party to the petition and for non-joinder of the election officer, the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed. 47. However, in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Michael B. Fernandes's case (1 supra), wherein it was held that the Returning Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer need not be impleaded as party-respondents in the election petition, we are bound by the same. 48. In view of the above discussion and our findings on point No.1, we hold that the, impugned order cannot sustain and the same is liable to be set aside. 49. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned order, dated 23-03-2009 in W.P.No.3384 of 2009 is set aside and consequently, the order in E.O.P.No.7 of 2006 passed by the Election Tribunal stands set aside. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.