ORDER Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.02.2011 by which the Second Munsif, Ara has rejected the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner that the election petition would not be maintainable in view of the fact that the details have not been stated in the plaint filed on behalf of the private respondents. 3. The main allegations of the petitioner are that the allegations as made out at paragraphs 6 and 11 do not give details regarding the facts alleged. 4. It is submitted that booth number has not been given and it has also not been stated that as to which of the 15 voters have died before the election took place. Counsel for the petitioner submits that paragraph 11 similarly does not state details. 5. At paragraph 6, it may be noted that the booth number has been left blank, which appears to have been done inadvertently. The facts stated at paragraph 11 could only be determined and proved during the trial of the case when the plaintiff would be required to bring on record the names and the death certificates of the person who are said to have died before the election took place. 6. This Court finds that the statements made at paragraph 11 are quite clear inasmuch as it has been stated that there was gross illegality committed when the Returning Officer allowed persons to vote on booth nos. 108, 109, 110, 111, 115, 117 & 118. At paragraph 14, it is specifically stated that there has been illegality in the recounting of the votes in the manner that has been described in the said paragraph. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 108 of the Gram Panchayat Act which reads as follows:- <span class="Hfont">^^pquko ;kfpdk esa mu rF;ksa dk fooj.k jgsxk ftlij oknh fuHkZj djrk gksA oknh pquko ;kfpdk ij viuk gLrk{kj djsxk vkSj O;ogkj izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 ds vkns'k 6 esa fofgr jhfr ls vius vfHkopuksa dk lR;kiu djsxkA** 7. This Court, on perusal of the application, has found that in fact the respondent-plaintiff has signed on the election petition. This Court further finds that these aspects of the matter were considered by a judgment of this Court reported in the case of Rita Devi Vs. This Court, on perusal of the application, has found that in fact the respondent-plaintiff has signed on the election petition. This Court further finds that these aspects of the matter were considered by a judgment of this Court reported in the case of Rita Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Others [2007 (55) (2) BLJR 1272] and in the case of Bidesh Singh Vs. Madhu Singh and Another [2003 (51) (3) BLJR 2335], wherein the Courts have held that an election petition cannot be dismissed at the initial stage on the ground that it is not maintainable as it does not contain sufficient materials on which the respondent-plaintiff intends to rely. 8. I find no illegality in the order impugned. Besides which, this Court has also come to a finding that the facts alleged can only be provided during the trial and it is not possible for the respondent to give details regarding the allegations made by him in the plaint. 9. This writ application is thus dismissed. ?