JUDGMENT 1. - This Writ Petition has been filled by the petitioner grieved against the Order dated 18.4.2015 passed by the Election Tribunal hereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking dismissal of the election petition has been rejected. 2. The Respondent No. 1 filed election petition under provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act') and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 ('the Rules'). 3. The petitioner filed an application under Rule 82 of the rules intra alia Seating that under the said rule is was required of the election petitioner to verify the petition as per Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) and under C.P.C. the petitioner is required to file affidavit also and as the verification is not according to C.P.C. and affidavit has not been filed the Petition was not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the deficiency regarding non-filling of affidavit was a technical lacuna and for which the election petitioner can be granted opportunity and directed the election petitioner to produce affidavit within a period of 15 days and disposed of the application filed by the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned passed by the Election Tribunal is ex facie against the settled position of law. It is submitted that under sub-rule (4) of Order 6, Rule 15 C.P.C. filing of the affidavit and verification of pleading is mandatory and in absence whereof the Petition was liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. 7. The sub-rule (4) of Order 6, Rule 15 C.P.C. was introduced by way of amendment in the year 1999. Several other amendments were also made and consequence thereof were provided under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. While the requirements of filing the plaint in duplicate and non-compliance of provisions of Rule 9 Order 7 have been introduced as grounds for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C., non-compliance of provisions of sub-rule (4) of Order 6, Rule 15 C.P.C. has not been made ground for rejection of plaint. 8. 8. The language of sub-rule (4), though requires filing of the affidavit in support of the pleadings, however, it cannot be said that the provision is mandatory to the extent that non-filing of the same would result in dismissal of the election petition and the same cannot be permitted to be filed later on. 9. The provisions of Rule 82 of the Rules reads as under:- "Rule 82. Contents and verification of election petition. - (1) The petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings." 10. The requirement of the Rule 82 of the Rules is that the petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts and is required to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the C.P.C. for the verification of pleadings. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Manhuk & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 480 , while dealing with the applicability and extent of provisions of C.P.C. to election petitions under the Representation of People Act, 1951 has as under:- "(ii) On the language of Section 87(1) of the Act, it is clear that the applicability of the procedure provided for the trial of suits to the trial of election petitions is not attracted with all its rigidity and technicality. The rules of procedure contained in C.P.C. apply to the trial of election petitions under the Act of flexibility and only as guidelines. (iii) In case of conflict between the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules framed thereunder or the rules framed by the High Court in exercise of the power conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution on the one hand, and the rules of procedure contained in C.P.C. on the other hand, the former shall prevail over the latter." 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as no affidavit has been by the petitioner, the permission to file the affidavit by the Election Tribunal would amount to filing of affidavit beyond the period of limitation, which is not permissible. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as no affidavit has been by the petitioner, the permission to file the affidavit by the Election Tribunal would amount to filing of affidavit beyond the period of limitation, which is not permissible. The affidavit filed/required to be filed along with the election petition not be said to be an integral part of the election petition and, therefore, mere of the same after the expiry of period of limitation, cannot effect its maintainability. 13. In view of the above, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******