ORDER A.S. Pachhapure, J. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dt. 18.02.2006 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Kundapura, declaring the election of the petitioner as void and that the Respondent No. 2 is duly elected candidate in the panchayath elections held on 27.2.2005. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under : The elections to Mudur Grama Panchayath were held on 27.2.2005. There were four wards within the limits of the Grama Panchayath and out of which, ward No.II was reserved for General Category (Woman). The petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 were the rival contestants. 3. After the elections, the counting of votes was held on 1.3.2005 and the results were certified in Form No. 36 under Rule 74 (2) (c) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter called as the Rules) and the petitioner before this Court having secured 359 votes was declared elected from Ward No. 11, whereas the Respondent No. 2 is said to have secured 328 votes and was declared defeated. 4. It is thereafter that the Respondent No. 2 filed the application, which was numbered as O.S. No. 51/2005 by the Trial Court on 9.3.2005 seeking the relief of declaration that the election of the petitioner herein is void and to declare him as duly elected. An amount of Rs.500/- was deposited on 9.3.2005 as required under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) Later, I.A.No. 6 came to be filed by Respondent No. 2 on 11.3.2005 under Section 151 CPC AND Rule 5 (4) (h) of Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 (‘hereinafter called as the 1967 Rules’) and the suit was converted into a Miscellaneous Petition vide order dated 14.3.2005. It was the contention of Respondent No. 2 before the Trial Court that the elections were peaceful and during the counting of the votes, the votes casted were entered into a graph sheet which gave the clear picture about the votes obtained by each of the candidates. It was also her contention that about 377 votes were casted in her favour on the date of the election and one vote by post and therefore, claimed that she had secured more number of votes than the petitioner. It was also her contention that about 377 votes were casted in her favour on the date of the election and one vote by post and therefore, claimed that she had secured more number of votes than the petitioner. She was surprised to hear the result of her defeat and the return of the candidature of the Respondent No. 2. It was also her case that the graph sheet maintained revealed the number of votes obtained by her and as her adversary got less votes, she contended that the declaration of the petitioner as a returned candidate is void. Though she asked for the copy of the graph sheet, which contains the number of votes obtained by the candidates, the copy was not furnished to her and ultimately she approached the Court below challenging the elections by filing a petition under Sections 15 and 19 of the Act. 5. In pursuance of the notices issued, the petitioner and Respondent No.1 herein appeared and filed their objections denying the alleged invalidity of the election contending that there was proper counting and that there was no illegality of any type during the election and it was their further contention that the proper procedure was adopted and the results were declared as per the votes obtained by the respective candidates. In was also their contention that the suit/petition was not maintainable for non-compliance of the mandatory requirements. On these grounds, they sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The records reveal that the petition which was filed by the 2nd respondent on 9.3.2005 was registered as O.S.No. 51/2005 and later, i.e., on 17.3.2005, I.A.No.6 was filed under Section 151 CPC and the Court passed the orders on the said I.A. directing the office to register the suit as Election Petition as provided under Rule 5(4) (h) of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, as Miscellaneous Petition. In view of this order, the suit was registered as Miscellaneous Petition. During the enquiry, the 2nd Respondent was examined as PW.1 and in her evidence, the documents Exs. P.1 to P.6 were marked. On behalf of the Election Officer, one Srinivas was examined as RW. 1 and the petitioner before this Court was examined as RW.2. In view of this order, the suit was registered as Miscellaneous Petition. During the enquiry, the 2nd Respondent was examined as PW.1 and in her evidence, the documents Exs. P.1 to P.6 were marked. On behalf of the Election Officer, one Srinivas was examined as RW. 1 and the petitioner before this Court was examined as RW.2. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court allowed the petition and declared the 2nd Respondent i.e., the petitioner before the Trial Court holding that the returned candidate had obtained 378 votes as against the petitioner, the defeated candidate who obtained 359 votes. The said order of the Trial Court is challenged before this Court. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent and the Government pleader. The Points that arise for my consideration are: (1) Whether there is non- compliance of the mandatory requirement to deposit the amount of Rs.500/- as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act ? (2) Whether there is any illegality in the order of the Trial Court ? Re. Point Nos. 1 and 2: 8. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Election Petition filed by the 2nd Respondent was not maintainable as the required deposit as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act was not paid as on the date of the petition and therefore, he submits that on this ground alone the order of the Trial Court has to be set aside. Secondly, he contends that the graph sheet which has been produced at Ex.P.2 cannot be accepted as evidence as the maintenance of such document is not contemplated either under the Act or the Rules hereunder and therefore, he submits that the acceptance of Ex.P.2 by the Trial Court is illegal, which has resulted in passing of and illegal order. Thirdly, he contends that the Trial Court ought to have recounted the votes to know exactly the number of votes secured by the candidates as mentioned in the graph sheet Ex. P.2 and in the circumstances, he submits that the judgment and order of the Trial Court is illegal and has to be quashed. The learned Government Pleader supported the order of the Trial Court whereas, the 2nd Respondent contends that Ex. P.2 and in the circumstances, he submits that the judgment and order of the Trial Court is illegal and has to be quashed. The learned Government Pleader supported the order of the Trial Court whereas, the 2nd Respondent contends that Ex. P.2 is the graph sheet maintained by the Election Officer, which was used for the purpose of marking and counting the votes and it was necessary to know the number of votes obtained by each candidates, and it has been rightly taken into consideration by the Trial Court. He also contends that the scrutiny of Ex. P.2 reveal that the 2nd Respondent had obtained more votes than the petitioner and hence, the Trial Court was right in relying upon Ex. P.2. On these grounds he has sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. The scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties reveal that the 2nd Respondent filed the petition under Sections 15 and 19 of the Act on 9.3.2005 and the perusal of this petition reveals that the 2nd respondent herein in the cause title of the petition filed before the Court below mentioned as “the application No....../ 2005.” On the presentation of this application, it was the duty of the Court below to register it as a Miscellaneous Petition as required under Rule 5(4) (h) of the Rules of Practice, 1967. Though the petition was filed as an application before the Trial Court, it was registered as Original Suit No. 51/2005 instead of registering it as a miscellaneous petition. So for as the Party who presents the petition is concerned, he does not have any say in the matter of registration of a petition either as a suit or a miscellaneous petition or otherwise at that stage. It was the Trial Court, which was to number it as a miscellaneous petition, but it committed the mistake in registering it as a suit. Therefore, as it was the mistake of the Trial Court and not that of the 2nd respondent herein, and she could not be held responsible for any wrong committed by the Trial Court. The notice of the suit was issued and the petitioner herein who is the contesting 4th respondent before the Trial Court appeared and filed her objections on 23.05.2005. The notice of the suit was issued and the petitioner herein who is the contesting 4th respondent before the Trial Court appeared and filed her objections on 23.05.2005. But before filing the objection statement, the 2nd respondent herein filed I.A.No.6 before the Trial Court under Section 151 CPC read with Rule 5(4) (h) of the Rules of Practice requesting to recall the entire case from the original side and to pass such other order as the Court deems fit. Thereby, the petitioner before the Trial Court came to know about the mistake committed in registering the petition as a original suit and immediately filed the application requesting for the registration of the suit as a miscellaneous petition. The said application was allowed and the suit came to be registered as Miscellaneous Petition No.2/2005. The deposit of Rs. 500-00 as required under Section 15 of the Act was on the date of presenting of the petition under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act as security for the costs. The limitation for filing the petition together with the deposit is within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election. The result of the election was declared on 1.3.2005 and the petition came to be filed on 9.3.2005 and though the petition was registered as a suit, the order sheet of the Trial Court reveals that the amount of Rs. 500-00 was deposited on 9.3.2005, the date when the application was presented to the Court. Apart from this, it is relevant to note that the application for converting the suit into a petition was filed on 11.3.2005 and the order came to be passed by the Trial Court on 14.3.2005, which date is also within a period of 30 days from the date of the declaration of the results. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the deposit must be with the miscellaneous petition and not with the suit. This query raised is solely because that the Trial Court committed a mistake in numbering the petition as a suit and as this mistake is on the part of the Court, the petitioner before the Trial Court cannot be penalised for the wrong committed by the Court. This query raised is solely because that the Trial Court committed a mistake in numbering the petition as a suit and as this mistake is on the part of the Court, the petitioner before the Trial Court cannot be penalised for the wrong committed by the Court. When admittedly, the deposit was made on 9.3.2005 itself alongwith the petition challenging the elections, the wrong registration of the petition as a suit does not invalidate the deposit made by the 4th respondent herein. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petition filed by Respondent No.4 herein was maintainable and the contention raised in this regard has no merit. 10. As regards the second contention of the acceptance of the graph sheet Ex.P.2, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the maintenance of the graph sheet is not provided under any Rules and therefore, he submits that Ex.P.2 cannot be taken into consideration for any purpose. The election to Village Panchayath was held on 27.2.2005. There were as many as nine candidates to the four categories and there were nominations of nine candidates. As regards the category which was reserved for women, it is the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein, who were rival contestants. Ex.P.2 contains the names of the candidates, the categories and also the mark of votes in the squares of the graph sheet which were made for each of the candidates and the total number of votes obtained by the respective candidates were made as against their names. Ex.P.2 is signed both by the Election Supervisor and the Election Officer. 11. Now, so far as the election is concerned , the 1993 Rules are applicable to the election in question. After the voting is completed, Rule 58 provides that the ballot boxes will have to be sealed and the procedure in this regard has been provided under the said rule. Rule 63 provides the procedure for appointment of counting agents and Rule 64 provides the time and place of counting of votes. As to who are all to be present at the place fixed for counting is provided under Rule 65 and the procedure for the scrutiny and opening of the ballot boxes will be done as provided under Rule 68. The counting of votes is covered by the provisions of Rules 69 and 70. As to who are all to be present at the place fixed for counting is provided under Rule 65 and the procedure for the scrutiny and opening of the ballot boxes will be done as provided under Rule 68. The counting of votes is covered by the provisions of Rules 69 and 70. The perusal of these Rules do not provide any procedure of counting votes and there is no specification as to the procedure or manner of counting and calculating the number of votes obtained by each candidates. Though the rule provides the procedure regarding the rejection and acceptance of the ballot papers as to how the counting is to be recorded in respect of accepted ballot papers is not provided. It is further relevant to note that the law cannot provide remedy or procedure for each and every contingency and if there is any lacuna in the Rules as regards the procedure of counting the votes, it would be the discretion of the counting authority to adopt certain procedure which is proper in the given circumstance. There is no dispute between the parties as regards the validity of the votes counted. The counting authorities adopted the procedure by making a mark in the blocks of the squares provided against the names of each of the candidates, and accepted the graph sheet in the form of Ex.P.2 and this fact has been spoken to by the Election Officer (RW.1) in his evidence. Though this procedure of making the mark in the blocks of a square is not provided under the Rules, in the absence of specific provision, I do not think that the Election Officer committed any wrong in adopting this procedure. So far as the petitioner herein is concerned, her name is at Sl. No.3 and each square contains 25 blocks wherein each vote obtained by the candidate will be marked in each of the blocks and she has obtained 358 votes and marks have been made in 358 blocks of the squares. As regards the 2nd respondent herein, there are 377 marks of votes obtained by her, as against her name. 25 blocks in one square refer to 25 votes and the total of all the marks in the blocks of the squares, as against the name of the 2nd respondent herein, though comes to 377 in the graph sheet Ex.P.2 the total is mentioned as 327. 25 blocks in one square refer to 25 votes and the total of all the marks in the blocks of the squares, as against the name of the 2nd respondent herein, though comes to 377 in the graph sheet Ex.P.2 the total is mentioned as 327. Therefore, from looking to Ex. P.2, a mistake is committed in totaling the number of votes obtained by the 2nd respondent by the persons entrusted with the counting of votes. It is on this ground that the 2nd respondent herein approached the Trial Court contending that though she obtained 377 votes, due to the calculation mistake committed in counting, there is wrong mention of 327 and thereby, she was declared as a defeated candidate though she obtained more votes than the petitioner herein. 12. The perusal of the evidence of RW.1 reveals the admission regarding the mistake in totalling the votes. Though he states that these marks were made in the squares of the respective candidates, by looking to Ex.P.2, he states that the petitioner in herein had obtained 358 votes, whereas the 2nd respondent had obtained 377 votes. Though Ex. P.2 is disputed solely on the ground that no such form has been provided under the Rules, the bare perusal of Ex.P. 2 reveals the mistakes occurred in counting the votes. So also, Rw.1 in his evidence states that Form No.28 provided under Rule 59 (1) of the Rules is filled in on the basis of the number of votes contained in Ex.P.2. So the perusal of Rule 59 (1) reveals that the Presiding Officer after the closure of the counting has to prepare Form No. 28 and Part II of the form requires to mention the name of the candidates and the number of valid votes cast in favour of each of the candidates. So the perusal of the evidence of RW.1 reveals that the number of valid votes mentioned in part II of Form No.28 is on the basis of the votes mentioned in Ex.P.2. So the mistake crept into in Ex P.2 has resulted into the defeat of the 2nd respondent herein though she obtained more votes in the election than the petitioner herein. So the mistake crept into in Ex P.2 has resulted into the defeat of the 2nd respondent herein though she obtained more votes in the election than the petitioner herein. Therefore, in my opinion when the Rules does not provide any specific procedure so far as the manner of counting the accepted votes, the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent in preparing the graph sheet and marking the votes in the blocks of each squares as against the name of each of he candidates, is reasonable and proper and the fact that such procedure is not provided under the Rules does not invalidate Ex. P.2 for any reason. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court took a right decision in accepting the contents of Ex. P.2 and granting the relief to the Respondent No. 2 herein. 13. Alternatively, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when there was mistake in Ex. P.2, the graph sheet he submits that the trial Court ought to have re-counted the votes after looking to the ballot papers by adopting the method of re-counting. On this aspect of the matter, the Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2001 Kar 5665 (Lakkappa Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District and Others) wherein, this Court held that once the counting is over and the Returning Officer prepares Form No.31, an application for recounting cannot be entertained. Apart from this, it is relevant to note that it was not at all the contention of the petitioner that there was any wrong either in the acceptance of the rejection of the ballot papers or that there was any wrong while making the marks in Ex.P.2 in respect of the votes obtained by the candidates. In the absence of such contention in the objection statement, I do not think that the contention raised by the petitioner for re-counting has any merit. 14. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the minute details of the procedure need not be provided under the Rules and any discretion exercised by the authorities in counting the votes in the absence of any procedure, if it is proper and reasonable, can be adopted. 15. 14. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the minute details of the procedure need not be provided under the Rules and any discretion exercised by the authorities in counting the votes in the absence of any procedure, if it is proper and reasonable, can be adopted. 15. Hence, I conclude that Ex.P.2 is an acceptable document and the mistake crept in while totalling the votes has been rightly rectified by the Trial Court in granting the relief to the 2nd respondent, overruling the objections of the petitioner, Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition. In the circumstances, I answer Point Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following. ORDER The petition is dismissed.