ORDER 1. This Civil Revision under section 26(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 is directed by the revisionist/respondent No. 1 against the impugned judgment dated 25.1.2012 passed by III Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Election Petition No. 1/2011, whereby the election of the revisionist/respondent No. 1, Govind Singh, returned candidate to the Municipal Council, Shivpuri from Ward No. 16 has been declared void. 2. The Election Petitioners, who had themselves contested the election for the office of Councilor from Ward No. 16 of the Municipal Council, Shivpuri held on 20.12.2004 had raised an objection before the Returning Officer, that respondent No. 1 Goving Singh belongs to general category being a member of ‘Rajput’ caste, therefore, his candidature against the reserved consitituency for the Schedule Tribe should not be permitted but the Returning Officer while conducting preliminary enquiry, based upon the Caste Certificate produced by respondent No. 1, found him to be a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and permitted him to participate in the Election Process. In the Election Process, he (Goving Singh) was declared as returned candidate from Ward No. 16 and a Certificate of Election was issued in his favour. Thereafter, Election Petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein/petitioners under section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 against the returned candidate, Govind Singh on the ground that he belongs to ‘Rajput’ caste and is not a member of Scheduled Tribe for which Ward No. 16 was reserved. 3. Revisionist/respondent No. 1, Govind Singh pleaded in his written statement that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe and such a certificate was issued to him by the competent authority, therefore, he had lawfully contested the Election from Ward No. 16 of Municipal Council, Shivpuri as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. 4. The Election Petition was tried by IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shivpuri in the Election Petition No. 2/05 and by a judgment dated 4.8.2005, the Election Petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 4.8.2005, respondents filed Civil Revision. Vide order dated 29.4.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 202/05, this Court by allowing the same, set-aside the impugned judgment dated 4.8.2005 and remanded the matter back to the Election Tribunal for holding fresh trial. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 4.8.2005, respondents filed Civil Revision. Vide order dated 29.4.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 202/05, this Court by allowing the same, set-aside the impugned judgment dated 4.8.2005 and remanded the matter back to the Election Tribunal for holding fresh trial. 5. The matter was tried afresh as per direction of this Court and vide the impugned judgment dated 25.1.2012, the Election Petition was allowed by setting aside the election of the respondent No. 1, Govind Singh. 6. Shri Anil Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the Caste Certificate was issued by the Competent Authority after holding due enquiry. The learned Election Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the authenticity and genuineness of the Caste Certificate. He further submits that the mark-sheet of class IX (Exhibit P-3) alleged to be of Govind Singh contains material discrepancy not only in the name of student but also in the name of description to his father and the word ‘Rajput’ has been added subsequently by overwriting or postscript. Govind Singh never studied in that school at Shivpuri, therefore, the mark-sheet (Exhibit P-3) do not belong to him and as such, it cannot be used for denying the genuineness of his Caste Certificate. The description contained in khasra panchsala creates sufficient suspicion against the parentage of Govind Singh. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Madhuri patil (Kumari) and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94 , the Election Tribunal be directed to refer the matter to Caste Scrutiny Committee to investigate into the caste status of Govind Singh. 7. On the other hand, Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that Caste Certificate (Exhibit D-1) does not disclose the caste or sub-caste in the first column, where the caste of a person is required to be mentioned therein. Caste of revisionist/Govind Singh was described as ‘Sahariya’, in the last column of the certificate, which goes to show that without finding Govind Singh to be a member of ‘Sahariya’, the Caste Certificate has been issued. Caste of revisionist/Govind Singh was described as ‘Sahariya’, in the last column of the certificate, which goes to show that without finding Govind Singh to be a member of ‘Sahariya’, the Caste Certificate has been issued. Shri Bansal further submitted that the Election Tribunal after due enquiry had reached at a conclusion that Govind Singh belongs to ‘Rajput’ caste and is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe and was ineligible to contest the election from Ward No. 16, which was reserved for candidates belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary, (2003) 8 SCC 204 . Learned counsel further submits that the case cannot be again remanded back to the Election Tribunal as Election Tribunal has already enquired into the caste status of Govind Singh. 8. I have considered the submissions made on both the sides and perused the material available on record of the present revision as well as of the Election Petition. 9. There is no denial of the fact that the election for the office of Councilor from the Ward No. 16 of Municipal Council, Shivpuri was reserved for a member of the Scheduled Tribe. 10. Out of three issues framed, the relevant issue is issue No. 1 which reads as under:- “Whether the non-applicant No. 1, Govind Singh does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe?” 11. The election petitioners have examined Makkhan (P.W.1), Raju Adiwasi (P.W.2) and Harishankar Chandoria (P.W.5) and placed Exhibits P-1 to Exhibit P-9, the documents on record. The returned candidate, Govind Singh has examined himself as D.W.1 and placed on record his Caste Certificate (Exhibit D-1) and certificate of election (Exhibit D-2) issued by the Returning Officer. 12. P.W.1 Makkhan and P.W.2, Raju Adiwasi deposed that Govind Singh is the resident of Village Badodi. He is son of Lohare Singh. He does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe. He is ‘Rajput’ by caste P.W.1 Makkan further deposed that Hargovind and Govind is the same person and had contested Election on the forged Caste Certificate. P.W.3, Laxman Rawat has also deposed that Govind Singh does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe, rather, he is Thakur by caste. 13. He does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe. He is ‘Rajput’ by caste P.W.1 Makkan further deposed that Hargovind and Govind is the same person and had contested Election on the forged Caste Certificate. P.W.3, Laxman Rawat has also deposed that Govind Singh does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe, rather, he is Thakur by caste. 13. P.W.4, Rajkumar Gaud, Upper Division Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School No. 2, Shivpuri has brought the school admission register of the year 1985-86 and deposed that Hargovind S/o Lohare Singh resident of Badodi was the student of his school. He was admitted in class IX on 26.7.1985 (Exhibit P-5C) after passing class VII examination from Madyamik Vidyalaya Madhav Chowk, School No. 1. He has passed class IX examination from his school, (Exhibit P-6C). His date of birth is mentioned in school record as 5.4.1969. The testimony of the aforesaid witness has not been challenged during the cross-examination. 14. P.W.1. Makkan stated that Exhibit P-4, khasra panchshala is of the land of Govind Singh and his family members. Exhibit P-4, khasra Panchahala of the year 2003-04 shows that survey No. 28/2 situated at Village Badodi Sadak is of Mu. Jasoda wife of Lohare. Vijay Singh and Govind Singh sons of Lohare and Chameli Bai, Janki Bai, Geeta Bai and Shanti Bai daughters of Lohare. Their caste has been described as Thakur. This document has been produced in evidence by the election petitioners to demonstrate that Govind Singh is the son of Lohare Singh and Jasoda Bai and they belong to ‘Thakur’ caste. When Govind Singh (DW-1) was cross-examined, a suggestion was given to him that the name of his father is Lohare Singh, then he explained that his father’s name is Bhav singh mother’s name is Jasoda Bai, but since his father has expired during his childhood, he is not aware of the fact that his father was also known as Lohare Singh. He denied in his cross-examination that Vijay Singh happens to be his brother and Chameli Bai, Jandi Bai, Geeta Bai and Shanti Bai are his sisters. He admits only one description that the name of his mother is Jasoda Bai which corresponds with the description contained in the Khasra Panchshala (Exhibit P-4). 15. D.W.1, Govind Singh filed an affidavit in his examination-in-chief in terms of Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, which contains his father’s name as Bhav Singh @ Lohare. He admits only one description that the name of his mother is Jasoda Bai which corresponds with the description contained in the Khasra Panchshala (Exhibit P-4). 15. D.W.1, Govind Singh filed an affidavit in his examination-in-chief in terms of Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, which contains his father’s name as Bhav Singh @ Lohare. The notice issued by the Court to him contains the description about the father’s name to be Lohare Singh. The Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the Govind Singh in which his name has been described as Govind Singh son of Bhav Singh @ Lohare Singh. 16. It is pertinent to mention here that the revisionist, Govind Singh (respondent) has neither examined his mother nor any person to prove that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe. While dealing with an election dispute, the Supreme Court has examined an issue about the exclusive knowledge of a litigant, who deliberately remains silent and expect his opponent to discharge his burden to prove his caste. The Apex Court observed in the case Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 , that the question as to whether the burden to prove a particular matter is on the plaintiff or the defendant would depend upon the nature of the dispute and when a fact is within the specific knowledge of a particular litigant, then the burden to prove the same would be on him, in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In the present case, when the fact of the parentage of respondent, Govind Singh was in the exclusive knowledge of respondent, Govind Singh, then it could be conveniently believed that the burden would shift upon him to prove that his father was not known as Lohare Singh and he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe, however, a perusal of his own affidavit and Vakalatnama reveals that his father, Bhav Singh was also known as Lohare Singh. 17. So far as, the genuineness or correctness of the caste certificate (Exhibit D-1) is concerned, the Election Tribunal summoned the record of the Competent Authority by whom it was issued for ascertaining the contents of the Caste Certificate as well as its correctness, authenticity, genuineness and social status of Govind Singh, but the record could not be produced before the Tribunal as it was not available in the office of concerned authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Shivpuri. 18. 18. The revisionist, Govind Singh could not produce any person from his family or even his mother, Jasoda Bai, to prove that he (Govind Singh) belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the revisionist, Govind Singh. In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Punit Rai (Supra) is referred to. 19. In Madhuri Patil (Kumari) and another (supra), the Apex Court laid down a detailed procedure for issuance of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe certificate and also procedure for testing the veracity and genuineness of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe certificate. In the case in hand, both the parties have led oral and documentary evidence on the point of caste status of the revisionist before the Election Tribunal. Earlier vide judgment dated 4.8.2005, the Election Petition was dismissed - Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 4.8.2005, present respondents have filed Civil Revision. vide order dated 29.4.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 202/05, this Court by allowing the same set-aside the impugned judgment dated 4.8.2005 and remanded the matter back to the Election Tribunal for holding fresh trial. The matter was tried afresh as per direction of this Court and vide the impugned judgment dated 25.1.2012, the Election Petition was allowed by setting-aside the election of the respondent No. 1, Govind Singh. Both the parties have led oral and documentary evidence on the point of caste status of the Govind Singh, therefore, looking to the peculiar facts of the case as well as earlier remand order, this Court is of the considered view that it seems to be not proper to again remand the matter back to the Election Tribunal. 20. For the foregoing discussion, in the opinion of this Court, the Election Petition was rightly allowed by the learned Election Tribunal. The Election Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error of jurisdiction in holding that the revisionist/respondent No. 1, Govind Singh does not belong to Scheduled Tribe community. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment under challenge does not require interference while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.