Judgment Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated Civil Revision No.478 of 2014 titled Sahbana Ram Vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate Samana and others (for brevity “the 1st case”) and Civil Revision No.521 of 2014 titled Paramjit Kaur Vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate Samana and others (in short “2nd case), arising out of the similar impugned orders, between the parties, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petitions have been extracted from Civil Revision No.478 of 2014 titled Sahbana Ram Vs. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate Samana and others (1st case). 2. The contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petitions and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of general elections for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Dera Chinia Wala, District Patiala, petitioner Sahbana Ram son of Narmata Ram secured 205 votes. At the same time, respondent No.2-Balwinder Kaur wife of Sher Singh has also secured equal numbers of (205) votes, each out of the total polled valid votes. Consequently, petitioner-Sahbana Ram was declared elected on the basis of Toss/lot, by the Returning Officer, for the post of Sarpanch, vide Form IX (Annexure P-1). Sequelly, petitioner-Paramjit Kaur wife of Nidhan Singh and respondent No.2-Jasvir Kaur wife of Surjit Singh (in 2nd case) secured the equal number of 229 votes, each out of the total polled valid votes. Petitioner-Paramjit Kaur was declared elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Dera Boharwala, District Patiala, on the basis of Toss/lot. 3. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.2-Balwinder Kaur (in 1st case) has preferred the election petition, to challenge the election of the post of Sarpanch. The another election petition was filed on similar grounds by respondent No.2-Jasvir Kaur (in 2nd case), under Section 76 of The Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 read with Rule 50 of The Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1995. The petitioners (herein) contested the election petitions, filed the replies/written statements (Annexure P-3). The respondent No.3-Presiding Officer has also filed the reply (Annexure P-4) in both the election petitions. 4. The petitioners (herein) contested the election petitions, filed the replies/written statements (Annexure P-3). The respondent No.3-Presiding Officer has also filed the reply (Annexure P-4) in both the election petitions. 4. Likewise, the Election Tribunal taking into consideration the fact that both the candidates have secured equal number of votes and were elected by way of Toss/lot, ordered the recounting of the votes, in order to arrive at a right conclusion, vide impugned orders dated 08.01.2014 (Annexure P-5). 5. The petitioners did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant petitions, to challenge the impugned orders (Annexure P-5), invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petitions in this context. 7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the Election Tribunal has got no jurisdiction, so, it has committed a legal mistake to order recounting of the votes, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Kirpal Singh vs. Preet Mohinder Singh, 1994(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 248, wherein, a Sarpanch was declared elected by a margin of 27 votes, election was challenged on various grounds and recount of votes was claimed. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was observed that recount of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of course on mere asking and a very strong ground should be made out by the persons seeking recounting of votes. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners, in the instant controversy. 8. As is evident from the record that, in the wake of general elections of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Dera Chinia Wala, District Patiala, petitioner Sahbana Ram son of Narmata Ram secured 205 votes. At the same time, respondent No.2-Balwinder Kaur wife of Sher Singh has also secured equal numbers of (205) votes, each out of the total polled valid votes. Consequently, petitioner-Sahbana Ram was declared elected on the basis of Toss/lot, by the Returning Officer, for the post of Sarpanch, vide Form IX (Annexure P-1). At the same time, respondent No.2-Balwinder Kaur wife of Sher Singh has also secured equal numbers of (205) votes, each out of the total polled valid votes. Consequently, petitioner-Sahbana Ram was declared elected on the basis of Toss/lot, by the Returning Officer, for the post of Sarpanch, vide Form IX (Annexure P-1). Similarly, petitioner-Paramjit Kaur wife of Nidhan Singh and respondent No.2-Jasvir Kaur wife of Surjit Singh (in 2nd case) secured the equal number of 229 votes, each out of the total polled valid votes. Petitioner-Paramjit Kaur was declared elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Dera Boharwala, District Patiala, on the basis of Toss/lot. 9. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the election of the post of Sarpanch was challenged, inter alia, on various grounds including the ground that elected candidates got less votes, as compared to other candidate, but the Returning Officer wrongly declared them elected, in the garb of Toss/lot. It was also claimed that even the Returning Officer has illegally declared their votes as invalid. However, the petitioners have stoutly denied the same. 10. Therefore, whether the elected candidates secured less votes then other candidates or vice-versa and whether Returning Officer has declared their votes invalid, as claimed by them, inter alia, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial of election petitions. In that eventuality, to my mind, no option was left with the Election Tribunal to order the recounting of the votes, in order to ascertain the validity, genuineness or otherwise of the polled votes. Thus, the Election Tribunal has rightly ordered of recounting of votes, in order to decide the real controversies between the parties. Learned counsel for petitioners did not point out how and in what manner they are going to be prejudice with the recounting of the votes in their presence. Therefore, the Election Tribunal has examined the matter in the right perspective, the impugned orders are valid, deserve to be accepted and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the cases. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petitions are hereby dismissed as such.