JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak in Election Misc. Case No.49 of 2012 allowing the recounting of votes for the post of Sarapanch of Basanta Grama Panchayat under Bonth Block in the district of Bhadrak. 2. Opposite party raised an election dispute challenging the election of Sarapanch of Basantia Grama Panchayat under Bonth Block. He pleaded that due to wrong folding of the ballot papers, the impression mark appeared in another symbol which was not assigned to any of the candidates and those votes were illegally rejected even though the vote was in his favour. Similarly, 7 votes were illegally counted in favour of the elected candidate though 4 votes were cast on the symbol "Umbrella" and 3 votes in the symbol "Fish". Likewise, he also pleaded that the Grama Panchayat is having 17 wards and he raised objection regarding counting of votes in respect of Ward Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17. He came to know about all these irregularities from the polling agents who raised objections. However, the same was not taken into consideration and the result was declared. Therefore, recounting of votes in those wards was necessary for just decision of the dispute. After receiving notice, the present petitioner appeared and filed his show cause traversing the allegations mad€ by the election petitioner. While the matter stood thus, another application was filed by him for recounting of votes. The petitioner filed his objection on the ground that the election petitioner did not produce or prove the allegations made by him in respect of total 29 disputed votes either through oral evidence or documentary evidence. The petitioner has examined 4 witnesses. Out of them, P.W.2 is an agent of Ward No.2, P.W.3 is an agent of Ward No.17 and P.W.4 is an agent of Ward No.15. Opposite party did not specifically aver the name of the agents, who were present in respect of the wards where the irregularities are said to have been committed. The petitioner has examined 4 witnesses. Out of them, P.W.2 is an agent of Ward No.2, P.W.3 is an agent of Ward No.17 and P.W.4 is an agent of Ward No.15. Opposite party did not specifically aver the name of the agents, who were present in respect of the wards where the irregularities are said to have been committed. Therefore, on the said allegations, recounting and inspection should not have been directed for the purpose of fishing inquiry but the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak, without passing the order for inquiring into the allegations made, in order to find out the truth has directed for counting of the ballot papers for the just decision of the case. 3. Mr. S.K. Nayak–2, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mere allegations are not sufficient to support the order for inspection of the ballot papers. Secrecy of ballot papers is sacrosanct which are to be maintained. In support of his contention, he has cited the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Vadivelu vs. Sundaram & others, AIR 2000 SC 3230 , Kattinokkula Murali Krishna vs. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao & others, 2010 (1) OLR (SC) 66, Jitendra Bahadur Singh vs. Krishna Behari & others, AIR 1970 SC 276 (V 57 C 58) and the decision of this Court in the case Narayan Chandra Nayak vs. Harish Chandra Jena & two others, 2009 (Supp–I) OLR 513. 4. Mr. S.P. Mishra learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party, while supporting the impugned order submitted that the election petitioner has specifically pleaded in the election petition as well as in his application for recounting of the votes on the ground of irregularities in counting. Since the margin of votes is only 25 between the winning candidates and the election petitioner, the Court below has rightly passed the impugned order. In support of his contention, he has cited the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Sadhu Singh vs. Darshan Singh & another, (2006) 6 SCC 255, Virender Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh & others, AIR 2007 SC 581 and the decisions of this Court in the case of Narayan Chandra Nayak vs. Harish Chandra Jena, 2009 (Supp–I) OLR 513 and Sri Ramji Pandey vs. Smt. Jayanti Majumdar, 2006 (I) OLR 799 . 5. 5. From the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the record, it appears that the election petitioner raised dispute with regard to 29 votes which were cast in different wards. From the petition which is annexed to the writ petition, it appears that the election petitioner though specifically stated how many votes were disputed in different wards he did not specifically disclose from whom he came to know about the irregularities in counting. In support of his pleadings, the election petitioner examined four agents as witnesses who supported the case of the election petitioner. However, it is not the case of the election petitioner that those 4 agents were present in all the 11 disputed booths at different times and they pointed out those irregularities at different disputed counting booths nor in the pleadings the election petitioner has pleaded as to who were the specific agents present at which booths and found all those irregularities as stated above. 6. Law is well settled that before an Election Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot papers and order re-count, two basic requirements are necessary, viz. (i) the election petition seeking re-counting of the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded and (ii) on the basis of evidence adduced in support of the allegations, the Tribunal must be, prima facie, satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties, making of such an order is imperatively necessary, are satisfied. In an election petition, the issues are to be decided differently and the order for recounting of votes may not be a final relief. 7. The apex Court in the case of Kailash vs. Nanhku & others reported in 2005 (I) OLR (SC) 718: AIR 2005 SC 2441 has held that the trial of an election petition is entirely different from the trial in civil suit as in a civil suit trial commence on framing the issues while the election trial encompasses all proceedings commencing from the filing of the election petition upto the date of decision. Therefore, the procedure provided for the trial of civil suits under CPC is not applicable in its entirety to the trial of the election petition. Therefore, the procedure provided for the trial of civil suits under CPC is not applicable in its entirety to the trial of the election petition. For the purpose of the election petition, the word "Trial" includes the entire proceedings commencing from the time of filing the election petition till the pronouncement of the judgment. The applicability of the procedure in Election Tribunal is circumscribed by two riders, firstly, the procedure prescribed in CPC is applicable only "as nearly as may be" and secondly, the CPC would give way to any provisions of the Act or any rules made thereunder. Therefore, the procedure prescribed in CPC applies to election trial with flexibility and only as guidelines. 8. In Sudarsha Avasthi vs. Shiv Pal Singh, (2008) 7 SCC 604 , the apex Court insisted that an election petition for declaration of the election of a return candidate as void can be entertained only if the petitioner furnishes all material facts and full particulars and inefficiency thereof, is to be fatal. More so, unbelievable and impracticable allegations of serious nature should be taken more seriously as it may amount to totally a cock and bull story. 9. It is solemn duty of the appellant to plead material facts. The case of illegally accepting or rejecting the ballots has to be pleaded giving the serial number of ballots and the source of information. Merely saying that petitioner's agent had told him was not enough. The name of the agent, who had furnished such information was to be disclosed in the election petition itself, note book on the basis of which such details had been furnished must be produced (Vide Jitendra Bahadur Singh vs. Krishna Behari, AIR 1970 SC 276 , M. Chinnasamy vs. K.C. Palanisamy & others, AIR 2005 SC 541 and Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar & others, AIR 2004 SC 2036 ). 10. In view of the above settled position of law and from the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court has totally misconceived and misdirected regarding pleadings raised and the evidence adduced by the election petitioner while passing the impugned order. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India sets aside the same and directs the trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the above settled principles of law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India sets aside the same and directs the trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the above settled principles of law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.