JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Fazruddin – elected Sarpanch has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 15.06.2011 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur Jhirka, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-3) moved by the elected Sarpanch for rejection of the election petition, which has been instituted by respondent no.1 herein Abdul Gafoor (election petitioner) challenging the election of the petitioner herein as Sarpanch. 2. The elected Sarpanch, in his application (Annexure P-3), alleged that according to Section 176 (1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short – the Act), the election petition is required to be presented by the election petitioner in person, but in the instant case, the election petition was not presented in person by the election petitioner, and therefore, the election petition is liable to rejection. Election petitioner, in his reply (Annexure P-4), alleged that he presented the election petition in person along with his counsel. It was also alleged that there is no provision in the Act requiring presentation of election petition in person by the election petitioner. Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-5), dismissed the application moved by the elected Sarpanch, who has, therefore, filed this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that election petition was presented on 03.07.2010 before Vacation Judge vide order (Annexure P-2), which records the presence of counsel for election petitioner only and not of the election petitioner himself in person. It was thus contended that election petition was not presented in person by the election petitioner as per mandatory requirement of Section 176 (1) of the Act, and therefore, election petition is liable to rejection. 5. Counsel for the election petitioner contended that according to reply (Annexure P-4), the election petition was presented in person by the election petitioner, and therefore, the election petition is not liable to rejection. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 7. Order (Annexure P-2) clearly reveals that the election petition was presented by counsel for the election petitioner and at that time, election petitioner was not present in person. It is thus established that the election petition was not presented in person by the election petitioner. 8. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 7. Order (Annexure P-2) clearly reveals that the election petition was presented by counsel for the election petitioner and at that time, election petitioner was not present in person. It is thus established that the election petition was not presented in person by the election petitioner. 8. Section 176 (1) of the Act stipulates that the election petition is to be presented by the election petitioner in person. Non-compliance of this provision would mean that the election petition was not validly presented and instituted, and therefore, the same is liable to rejection on this ground. In this view, I am supported by two judgments of this Court namely Gurlal Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Block Lehra, District Sangrur and others reported as 2010 (5) RCR (Civil) 474 and Major Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A. D. C.), Sangrur and others reported as, [2010(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2335] : 2010 (5) RCR (Civil) 934. 9. In view of the aforesaid, it is manifest that the election petition, having not been presented and instituted validly in accordance with mandatory requirement of Section 176 (1) of the Act, is liable to be rejected. Consequently, impugned order of the trial court, is perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error because the trial court refused to exercise jurisdiction, which vested in it. The impugned order is, therefore, unsustainable. 10. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial court is set aside. Application (Annexure P-3) moved by the elected Sarpanch (petitioner herein) is allowed and election petition (Annexure P-1) instituted by respondent no.1 herein is rejected. ------------------