ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner/election Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'election Petitioner') has challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 31-5-2010 by which the Election Tribunal has dismissed the election petition of the election Petitioner on account of non-compliance of Rules 3(2) and 8 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred as the Rules). 3. The facts leading to this petition lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner who is a voter has filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal praying to declare the election of Respondent No. 1 on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bharatpur to be illegal since she was not having requisite qualification to contest the election of the said Gram Panchayat. 4. The election petition was filed on 18-2-2010. On bare perusal of the order sheet of that date, it is gathered that the Respondent No. 1 was directed to be summoned on payment of process fee. Accordingly, summons were issued but returned back unserved. On 15-3-2010, the Election Tribunal directed to issue fresh notice to Respondent No. 1 for the date of hearing 23-3-2010. On this date Counsel for Respondent No. 1 appeared and made a demand to supply one copy of the petition which was supplied to her Counsel. On 19-4-2010 an application was submitted by the returned candidate/Respondent No. 1 raising an objection that the copy of the memorandum of election petition which has been supplied to her is neither signed nor verified by election Petitioner which is in contravention to Rule 3 of the Rules and hence, prayed that the election petition be dismissed. This application was opposed by election Petitioners by filing a written reply. The learned Tribunal allowed the application upholding the objection raised by the returned candidate and held that there is non-compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules. Eventually, the election petition has been dismissed by the impugned order. 5. In this manner, this petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the impugned order. 6. The learned Tribunal allowed the application upholding the objection raised by the returned candidate and held that there is non-compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules. Eventually, the election petition has been dismissed by the impugned order. 5. In this manner, this petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the impugned order. 6. It has been put forth by Shri P.C. Paliwal, learned Counsel for Petitioner that impugned order is ex facie, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law for the simple reason that copy of memorandum of election petition which was supplied to learned Counsel for the returned candidate after she was served in the Court on 23-3-2010 was not required to be signed and verified by the Petitioner. Learned Counsel further submits that copy of memorandum of election petition duly signed and verified by the election Petitioner was submitted along with the memorandum of election petition in the Court at the time of the presentation of the election petition. 7. Learned Counsel by inviting my attention to Rule 9 of the said Rules has contended that if a copy is given to Counsel for Respondent No. 1 later on before the Election Tribunal, the same is not required to be signed and verified by the election Petitioner. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on Division Bench decisions of this Court in Lata Patle v. Smt. Kamlesh Gautam 2008 (1) MPLJ 388 . 8. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that it was imperative on the part of the returned candidate/Respondent No. 1 either to show to the Election Tribunal that copy of memorandum of election petition which was served on him along with summons was not duly signed and verified by the election Petitioner or that copy which was sent to her along with summons should have been filed before the Election Tribunal in order to substantiate the objection raised by her in terms of Rule 3. Since this has not been done, it cannot be said that there is noncompliance of Rule 3 of the said Rule. 9. Since this has not been done, it cannot be said that there is noncompliance of Rule 3 of the said Rule. 9. On the other hand, Shri A. D. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 submitted that first order sheet of Election Tribunal dated 18-2-2010 does not indicate that election petition has been filed along with the copy of memorandum of election petition duly signed and verified by election Petitioner although other requirements in respect of filing challan of Rs. 500/- and filing of documents etc. have been mentioned in the said order sheet and therefore, for no rhyme or reason it should be held that election Petitioner submitted memorandum of election petition duly signed and verified by her and hence, there is total noncompliance of the Rule 3 of said Rules and if that would be the possession, learned Election Tribunal, did not err in passing the impugned order. In support of his contention learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on two decisions of this Court they are Chironjilal v. SDO, Vijaypur 1996 (1) MPWN 109 and Rama Banjara v. Kanchhedilal 1998 (1) MPWN 90. 10. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 11. The moot question to be decided in this petition is whether there is compliance of Rule 3 of the said Rules or not. If it was complied with, then this petition has to be allowed with a further direction to the Election Tribunal to proceed with election petition on its own merit. 12. The objection in respect of non-compliance of Rule 3 which was raised by the Respondent No. 1/returned candidate before the Election Tribunal by filing an application dated on 10-4-2010 (Annexure P-2) and which has also been substantiated by learned Counsel Shri A. D. Mishra in this Court appears to be quite attractive but on deeper scrutiny found to be devoid of any substance. Indeed the said application which has been filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal does not indicate that the summon which was served on her was not accompanied by memorandum of election petition duly verified and signed by the election Petitioner. According to me, if there was non-compliance of Rule 3 of the said Rules, certainly this fact must have been mentioned in the application. According to me, if there was non-compliance of Rule 3 of the said Rules, certainly this fact must have been mentioned in the application. The summons were directed to be issued on returned candidate vide order-sheet dated 15-3-2010 for the date of hearing 23-3-2010 and indeed Respondent No. 1 was served. Hence, the memorandum of election petition which was accompanied along with summons would have been the best evidence in order to substantiate the objection raised by the returned candidate/Respondent No. 1. I do not find any merit in the contention of Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 that the burden of proof to prove this fact that the memorandum of election petition which was sent along with the notice to Respondent No. 1 was duly signed and verified by the election Petitioner was on the election Petitioner. According to me, if a party is having the best evidence in his power and possession he is duty Bound to produce it in the Court in order to resolve the controversy and that party should not place reliance on the abstract doctrine of onus of proof that it was no part of his duty to produce it. According to me Respondent No. 1 should have filed the copy of election petition served upon her along with the summons in the Court in order to resolve the dispute. In this context, I may profitably place reliance on Hiralal and Ors. v. Badkulal and Ors. AIR 1953 SC 225 , Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and Ors. 1969 MPLJ (SC) 271 : AIR 1968 SC 1413 and Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Shah Ranchhodda Kali Das (dead) and Ors. 1971 MPLJ (SC) 257 : AIR 1970 SC 2025 . 13. Nearly about a century ago the Privy Council in T.S. Murugesam Pillai v. M.D. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi and Ors. AIR 1917 PC 6, has laid down the same preposition which has been later on followed by the Apex Court in different decisions, in all these decisions it has been further held that if a party is having best evidence in his power and possession and he fails to submit it in the Court, an adverse inference should be drawn against that party. Hence, it was incumbent on the part of returned candidate/Respondent No. 1 to file the copy of the memorandum of election petition which was sent to her along with summons in the Court in order to substantiate her objection. 14. So far as the supply of another copy of memorandum of election petition which was given to Respondent No. 1 before Election Tribunal on 13-3-2010 is concerned, according to me it was not required to be signed and verified by the election Petitioner. In this context much has been said by the Division Bench of this Court in Lata Patle (supra). Hence, I have no scintilla of doubt in order to hold that the extra copy which was supplied to the returned candidate/Respondent No. 1 before Election Tribunal on the date of hearing was not required to be verified and signed by the election Petitioner. 15. The decisions of Rama Banjara (supra) and Chironjilal (supra), placed reliance by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 are distinguishable on facts. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that learned Election Tribunal erred in dismissing the election petition by holding that there is non-compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules and I have no option except to allow this petition and to set aside the impugned order passed by learned Election Tribunal and I accordingly do it. 17. Resultantly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs, the impugned order dated 31-5-2010 is hereby set aside by giving further direction to Election Tribunal to decide the election petition on its merit. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/- if pre certified.