JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner who is elected Sarpanch assailing order of the Election Tribunal dated 11.08.2011 rejecting application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement filed before the Tribunal. 2. The respondent-2 who was one of the defeated candidate participated in the election held for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jeetawala, Panchayat Samiti Bassi, District Jaipur. After result of the election was declared respondent-2 being aggrieved filed election petition on 16.02.2010 and apart from other grounds one of the preliminary ground raised by respondent-2 in her election petition was that the elected candidate i.e. the petitioner was having more than two children after the cut off date and was ineligible to participate as she was holding pre-disqualification U/s 19(L) of Rajashan Panchayati Raj Act,1994 and the details about children of the petitioner along with date of birth were specifically mentioned in para-5 & 6 of the election petition. After the notice being served upon the petitioner written statement was filed on 24.05.2010 and specific averment was made that two children were born prior to cut off date and one daughter Sita Meena was given in adoption to one Smt. Birdi Devi w/o late Sh. Laxmi Narayan Meena and this was the defence which the petitioner took before the Tribunal when the written statement was filed and after the issues were framed on 07.08.2010 and parties lead evidence in support of their case and almost after a year thereafter the petitioner filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement filed on 11.08.2011 and curiously what has been averred is that her husband had two wives and two children were born from the first wedlock and other two children from the second wedlock who belong to the present petitioner and she could not disclose all these facts as she was illiterate lady and that application came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal assigning detailed reasons imposing cost of Rs. 2000/- upon the petitioner. 3. 2000/- upon the petitioner. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner being illiterate lady was not aware of as to what is being pleaded on her behalf by her lawyer and immediately when this fact came to her notice about the details of children being made available, she advised her lawyer to seek amendment for the reasons indicated above.Counsel further submits that if the amendment is not being permitted it may cause great adverse consequences and she being the elected Sarpanch the rights of public representative will be seriously defeated & jeopardised. 4. Counsel further submits that no effective progress after the reply being filed has taken place in the matter and in such circumstances if permission is granted no prejudice will be caused to the respondent as well. 5. Mr. Lokesh Sharma appearing for respondent-2 submits that what was disclosed by the petitioner in the written statement initially filed it was about the children from the present wedlock and what amendment she is seeking at a later stage when the defence came on record is completely a U turn and that cannot be now permitted and no error under the facts & circumstances is being committed by the learned Tribunal while passing the order impugned. 6. Counsel for respondent further submits that for one or the other reason the matter is being deferred and that is causing prejudice to her. 7. This Court has heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. What was disclosed by the petitioner in her written statement particularly in para-5 & 6 apprising the defence regarding four children & their details and nothing came on record that her husband has two wives and she being the second one two were born from first wedlock and two from the second wedlock and it was neither disclosed at the initial stage when the nomination form was filled or at the stage when the written statement came to be filed and after the evidence being recorded of the election petitioner such amendment being prayed for is a complete U turn for which the petitioner cannot be now permitted. At the same time this Court finds substance that there appears no justification for the Tribunal to impose cost upon the petitioner for filing of the application seeking amendment. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. At the same time this Court finds substance that there appears no justification for the Tribunal to impose cost upon the petitioner for filing of the application seeking amendment. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the cost imposed by the learned Tribunal under the order impugned dated 11.08.2011 stands waived and the order accordingly stands modified. The Tribunal is directed to expeditiously dispose of the election petition in accordance with law.Petition Disposed of. *******