ORDER 1. This revision petition under section 441-F (2) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act ("Act" hereafter) has been filed against the decision dated 11.1.2008 passed by learned XIIth Additional District Judge, Indore in Election Petition No. 10/05. By the order impugned the learned Court below has under section 441- D (b) of the Act declared the election of the Revisionist as Councillor, to be null and void. 2. The Revisionist was a successful candidate from ward No. 18 in the last general election to the Municipal Corporation, Indore. He had defeated the respondent No.7. In the said election the respondent No. 1 was Election Agent of the respondent No.7. The Election Agent was also a voter of ward No. 18. He as a voter challenged the election on the ground that in the relevant affidavit the Revisionist suppressed the fact of his externment which was ordered by Additional District Magistrate, Indore, vide order dated 29.9.2004 under section 8 oftl1e M.P. State Security Act. By the above order passed in case No. 158 of 2003, he was externed for one year. He also did not make full disclosure of other criminal cases. Accordingly the election of the Revisionist was sought to be declared null and void for violating the provisions of clause (i) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 24-A of M.P. Nagarpalika Nirvachan Niyam. He in the election petition also sought declaration that respondent No.7 be declared elected. The above petition was contested by the Revisionist. He denied the allegations made against him. The learned Court below framed issues, received evidence and after trial held that the Revisionist suppressed the above externment in his affidavit filed with the nomination form, therefore he was not qualified to contest the election and he adopted corrupt practice for getting him elected. He also held that it was not proved that the respondent No.7 had polled second highest votes, thus declined to declare him elected and only ordered the unseating of the Revisionist declaring his election as null and void. Hence this Revision. 3. At the motion hearing stage itself arguments for final disposal have been heard though respondent No. 1 only appeared after notices to all respondents. Having heard the arguments I have gone through the record and have reached the conclusion that the present revision deserves to be allowed for the reasons as shown below. 4. Hence this Revision. 3. At the motion hearing stage itself arguments for final disposal have been heard though respondent No. 1 only appeared after notices to all respondents. Having heard the arguments I have gone through the record and have reached the conclusion that the present revision deserves to be allowed for the reasons as shown below. 4. While the learned Court below has reached the adverse finding it has confined its consideration to the relevant affidavit of the Revisionist. It has not discussed the provisions of the Act which speak of the result which has to follow in the event of affidavit not complying with necessary requirements. An affidavit violative of the relevant provisions of law by itself does not lead to election turning void. Under the provisions of section 441-B (1) (d) (iv) of the Act in cases where there has been any noncompliance of the Rule as to an affidavit which was filed by the candidate with his nomination paper ending in materially effecting the result of the returned candidate then only the returned candidate has to be unseated in the election petition. Further section 441 of the Act providing for election petition lays down the necessity of pleading therein one or more of the grounds as given in section 441-B of the Act. The provisions of the Act presently under reference [section 44l-B (1) (b) (iv)] are similar to the provisions of section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Representation of the People Act. With reference to those provisions the apex Court has in AIR 1999 SC 252 , L.R. Shivaramagowda etc. v. T.M. Chandrashekhar etc. laid down that in order to declare an election to be void under section 100 (1) (d) (iv) it is absolutely necessary for the election petitioner to plead that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has been materially effected by the alleged non-compliance of the Act or Rules. As also vide AIR 1969 SC 663 , Paokai Haokip v. Rishang and others it has been held that burden of proving that ground is upon the election petitioner. In the case at hand neither there is any pleading relating to ground under section 441-B (1) (d) (iv) of the Act, nor there is any evidence with respect thereto. Thus the election petitioner failed to discharge his burden and his petition deserved dismissal only. In the case at hand neither there is any pleading relating to ground under section 441-B (1) (d) (iv) of the Act, nor there is any evidence with respect thereto. Thus the election petitioner failed to discharge his burden and his petition deserved dismissal only. [See Paokai Haokip (supra) in this connection]. Even if one could show some evidence on record in that respect yet in the circumstances that could not be considered for want of pleading. In this connection reference may be made to the case of L.R. Shivaramagowda (supra). Thus the ground on which the learned Court below set aside the election of the Revisionist has not been established. Thus the impugned decision is contrary to law. 5. Even the adverse finding of fact recorded by the learned Court below suffers from perversity inasmuch as in copy of the relevant affidavit (Ex. P-2) the Revisionist has mentioned .that in the High Court Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 4045 of 2004, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending consideration. It was sufficient notice of necessary fact for anyone interested in knowing the relevant details. If the persons interested would have gone for gathering the details they could have known that the said miscellaneous criminal case was to challenge the externment order in question. There was also an order of the High Court in that case that the operation of the order of externment passed by Additional District Magistrate, Indore in Case No. 158 of 2003 stood stayed. Thus in fact there was no suppression of relevant information and on facts in the circumstances there was no violation of clause (i) of sub-rule (1) of the Rule 24-A (as amended) of M.P. Nagarpalika Nirwachan Niyam. Thus the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction in unseating the Revisionist. 6. Sequel to the above discussion the impugned decision stands set aside and consequently the election petition under reference shall remain dismissed. Thus this revision stands allowed, however in the circumstances with no order as to costs.