JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned order dated 19.11.2011 (Annex.7) passed by the trial Court by which application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. was allowed and election petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned is totally against the spirit of Rule 11 Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure because for deciding an application under Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure because for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. only averments of plaint/petition can be seen and, in this case, application was filed by respondent No.1 Bhagat Singh under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. raising ground that there is- no disclosure of the cause of action in the plaint, therefore, the election petition may be dismissed. 3. Learned trial Court vide impugned order accepted the application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. and dismissed the election petition while holding that upon perusal of the election petition no cause of action is disclosed. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the said finding is totally erroneous because a plain reading of election petition clearly reveals that cause of action arose on 22.1.2010 when 14 ballots were rejected by the Election Officer and 8 votes which were already rejected were counted in favour of respondent No. 1 Bhagat Singh, therefore, it appears that order impugned has been passed in very casual manner by the trial Court and, for that reason, order impugned may be quashed and case may be remitted to the Election Tribunal for deciding the case on merit. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4420/2011, Smt. Karma v. District Returning Officer & Ors., decided on 19.7.2012. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no specific averment is made in the election petition by the petitioner to disclose that date of cause of action, therefore, there is no error in the order impugned. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 7. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no specific averment is made in the election petition by the petitioner to disclose that date of cause of action, therefore, there is no error in the order impugned. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 7. The petitioner preferred election petition under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, whereby, he challenged the election of respondent No.1 Bhagat Singh on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat 6 ZWN, Tehsil Gharsana (Panchayat Samiti Gharsana). In the election petition, respondent No.1 preferred application for rejection of the election petition stating therein that there is no disclosure of cause of action in the petition, therefore, in view of Order Rule 11, C.P.C. this election petition may be dismissed. 8. I have perused the election petition (Annex.-1) filed along with this writ petition. Upon perusal of the election petition it is revealed that it is totally wrong order passed by the Election Tribunal upon application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground that there is no disclosure of cause of action. 8. I have perused the election petition (Annex.-1) filed along with this writ petition. Upon perusal of the election petition it is revealed that it is totally wrong order passed by the Election Tribunal upon application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground that there is no disclosure of cause of action. Grounds ( d ) to ( ?k ) and paras 4 and 5 of the election petition are as follows: "( d ) ;g fd ljaip in ds fuokZpu ds fy, jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt vf/kfu;e] 1994 esa fn, x;s izko/kkuksa ds rgr ofj"B vkpj.k rFkk O;ogkj ds vk/kkj dks Hkh pquko ifj.kke dks pqukSrh nsus dk vk/kkj fn;k x;k gS] blfy, Hkh ;kph] izfri{kh la[;k 1 us izfri{kh la[;k 2] 3 o 4 ds lkFk nqfHkZlaf/k djds ;k=h ds pquko ifj.kke dks izHkkfor fd;k gS] tcfd ;kph mijksDr dqy iM+s erksa 1928 esa ls pquko erx.kuk esa ;kph dks] izfri{kh la[;k 1 ls vf/kd feys 58 erksa ls fot;h ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k Fkk fdUrq izfri{kh la[;k&1 ls 4 us izfri{kh la[;k&5 ds lkFk lktckt gksdj ;k=h ds pquko ifj.kke dks foijhr :i ls izHkkfor fd;k blfy, mijksDr pquko ifj.kke fof/klEer ugha gksus ds dkj.k iqu% erx.kuk djok, tkus ;ksX; gSA ( [k ) ;g fd mijksDr xzke iapk;r 6 tSM0MCY;w0,e0 rglhy ?kM+lkuk ds tksuy vkWfQlj Hkh tkrh ls tkV Fkk vkSj izfri{kh la[;k&1 Hkh tkV gS vkSj izfri{kh la[;k&1 tksuy vkWfQlj dk fj'rsnkj gksus ds ukrs izfri{kh la[;k&1 dks fot;h cukus esa tksuy vkWfQlj dh izR;{kr% Hkwfedk jgh gS] blh dkj.k izfri{kh la[;k&4 ( lriky ) us izfri{kh la[;k&1 ds [kkrs esa vius i{k esa gq, erksa dh ,d xM~Mh dks izfri{kh la[;k&1 ds [kkrs esa fxuokdj rFkk ;kph&vthZnkj] tks fd 58 erksa ls fot;h ?kksf"kr gks jgk Fkk] mlds pquko ifj.kke dks foijhr :i ls izHkkfor fd;k gS] blfy, Hkh ;kph mijksDr erksa dh iqu% x.kuk djokus dk gdnkj gks x;k gS ,oa ;kph erx.kuk ds le; Lo;a erx.kuk LFky ij ugha Fkk] cfYd mldk fo'oluh; ,d erx.kuk vfHkdrkZ Fkk] ftlus Hkh izfri{kh la[;k&5 ds le{k viuk ,rjkt tkfgj fd;k fdarq izfri{kh la[;k&5 }kjk vf/kd`r tksuy vkWfQlj us izfri{kh la[;k 4] tks fd Hkkjh erksa ls ijkftr gks jgk Fkk] mlus ml le; dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds lkFk le>kSrk djrs gq, ;kph ds ldkjkRed pquko dks udkjkRed ifj.kke nsus ds fy, izfri{kh la[;k&1 dks 79 erksa ls fot;h ?kksf"kr djokus esa lg;ksx fn;kA blls ;kph dk pquko ifj.kke rkfRod :i ls izHkkfor gqvk] blfy, Hkh mijksDr pquko esa Mkys gq, 1428 erksa dh iqu% erx.kuk djok;k tkuk vko';d gks x;k gSA ( x ) ;g fd xzke iapk;r 6 tSM MCY;w0 ,e0 rglhy ?kM+lkuk dk ljiap pquko tks fnukad 22-1-2010 dks lEiUu gqvk gS] esa 22 er tks ukeatwj vLohd`r fd, x, gSa] muesa ls 14 er gh pquko ifj.kke esa ukeatwj fn[kk, x, gSa vkSj 8 er tks ukeatwj Fks] mls Hkh izfri{kh la[;k&1 ds i{k esa fxudj mls fot;h ?kksf"kr djokus esa izfri{kh la[;k&5 ds vf/kd`r tksuy vkWfQlj ,oa pquko vf/kdkjh us izR;{k :i ls viuh Hkwfedk fdUgh ckg~; mn~n';ksa dh iwfrZ esa fuHkkbZ gSA blls Hkh ;kph dk pquko ifj.kke foijhr :i ls izHkkfor gksus ds dkj.k ;kph mijksDr erx.kuk dks pqukSrh nsrk gSA ( ?k ) ;g fd ;kph ds erx.kuk vf/kdrkZ us izfri{kh la[;k&5 ds vf/kd`r fuokZpu vf/kdkjh ls izfri{kh la[;k&1 dk xyr :i ls fot;h fuokZpu ifj.kke jn~n djus rFkk iqu% erx.kuk djus dk vkxzg fd;k rks izfri{kh la[;k 2] 3 o 5 ds b'kkjs ij iqu% erx.kuk djus ls badkj dj fn;k] blfy, orZeku ;kfpdk iqu% erx.kuk djokus ds fy, is'k djus ds vykok ;kph ds ikl vU; dksbZ fodYi ugha jg x;k gSaA blds vykok pquko vf/kdkjh us ;kph ds erx.kuk vfHkdrkZ ls can fd, x, cSysV isijksa ij viuh lhy Hkh ugha yxkus nh rFkk uk gh pquko ifj.kke ?kks"k.kk ds oDr gLrk{kj gh djok, x,A 4- ;g fd vthZnkj ;kph us izfri{kh ds bl ;kfpdk esa [kpsZ ds fy, crkSj izfrHkwfr eqcfyd :0 500@& v[kjs ikap lkS :i;s ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa tfj, pkyku tek djok, tk pqds gSa ,oa ;kfpdk dh ,d izfr ftyk fuokZpu vf/kdkjh iapk;r Jhxaxkuxj ds tfj, Mkd izek.k i= Hksth tk pqdh gSA pkyku dh izfrfyfi o Mkd izek.k i= layXu ;kfpdk gSA 5- ;g fd xzke iapk;r 6 tSM MCY;w0 ,e0 rglhy ?kM+lkuk ds {ks= esa iM+rh gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkjh esa fLFkr gSA bl izdkj ljiap ds pquko dks pqukSrh nsus okuh ;kfpdk ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj o Jo.kk vf/kdkj dh gS] tks :0 100@& ds U;kf;d 'kqYd ij pquko ;kfpdk] pquko ifj.kke ?kksf"kr gksus dh frfFk ls 30 fnol ds vUnj izLrqr gSA " Upon perusal of the above pleading it is abundantly clear that the power exercised by the Election Tribunal while deciding application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. is totally based upon wrong appreciation of the averments made in the election petition. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Election Tribunal apparently suffers from the jurisdictional error and deserves to be set aside.Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 19.11.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and application filed by respondent No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. is rejected. The election petition shall stand restored to its original number and stage which shall be decided by the Election Tribunal after due trial in accordance with law expeditiously.No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******