ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur ('the Judge'), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC read with Order XXVII, Rule 5A, Section 79 and Order I, Rule 9 CPC has been rejected. 2. The respondent – election petitioner filed election petition under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('Act of 1995') read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (Rules of 1994') seeking inspection and recount of the ballots cast at the election and claiming declaration as elected Sarpanch and setting aside of election of the returned candidate; the election petitioner impleaded the District Election Officer (Panchayat) as non-petitioner No.1 and Dr. Sampat Raj, the Returning Officer as non-petitioner No.7 to the election petition. 3. The petitioner on being served with the election petition, filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and other provisions, inter alia, indicating that the election petitioner has impleaded the District Electoral Officer and Returning Officer as non-petitioner Nos.1 and 7 and relief has been claimed against them; provisions of CPC have been made applicable to the election petition and, in view thereof, as the election petitioner has not impleaded the State of Rajasthan as party, the same was liable to be dismissed for non impleadment of necessary party under Order 27, Rule 5A CPC read with Section 79 and Order I, Rule 9 CPC. 4. The application was resisted by the election petitioner; it was submitted that the Code of Civil Procedure as such is not applicable and no relief has been claimed against the State Government and, therefore, it cannot be said that the State was a necessary party. Reliance was placed on judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. After hearing the parties, the Judge came to the conclusion that under Rule 85 the CPC has been made applicable in so far as it can be made applicable and the judgments cited by the returned candidate were not applicable and only because the Returning Officer has been impleaded as a party, the State cannot be impleaded as party and, consequently, rejected the application. 6-7. 6-7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judge committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner; the provisions of CPC have been made applicable, which is apparent from Rules 85 and 86, which provide for procedure provided in CPC to be followed in the hearing of the petition and that the Judge hearing a petition shall have the same powers and privileges as a Judge of a Civil Court when trying a suit and, as such, the provisions of CPC would apply with full vigour; it was submitted that provisions of Order 27, Rule 5A CPC are mandatory and consequently for its non-compliance it can safely be said that the election petitioner has not impleaded necessary party i.e. State to the election petition and, therefore, the election petition was liable to be rejected for non-compliance of necessary provisions. 8. Reliance was placed on Karan Singh v. Dr. Balwant Singh, 1997 DNJ (Raj.) 447, Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 3640 and Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology, Neem Ka Thana & ors. v. Brij Mohan Modi, RLW 1997 (3) Raj. 1770. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner; it was submitted that the learned Judge was justified in rejecting the application; at the outset it was submitted that the revision petition itself is not maintainable as the District Judge while dealing with the election petition act as persona designata and his orders are not revisable under Section 115 CPC. Reliance was placed on Santosh Kanwar & Ors. v. Surgyan Kanwar & Ors., AIR 2002 (Raj.) 152 . 10. It was further submitted that the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable as far as it can be made applicable and the provisions of CPC would give way to the provisions of the Act and the Election Rules and the provisions of Order 27, Rule 5A CPC has no application to the present case and State of Rajasthan being not a necessary party, the learned Judge was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and the revision petition also deserves to be dismissed. Reliance was placed on Smt. Sushila v. The Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar & Ors., 2006 (2) WLC (Raj.) 242 and Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. : (2005) 4 SCC 480 . 11. Reliance was placed on Smt. Sushila v. The Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar & Ors., 2006 (2) WLC (Raj.) 242 and Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. : (2005) 4 SCC 480 . 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. So far as the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the respondent about maintainability of the revision petition is concerned, in the judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondents itself it has been held that a revision petition under Section 115 CPC can be treated as writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India even without an application on behalf of the petitioner and in those circumstances in so far as the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court is concerned, the same can be exercised under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and merely because the petitioner has filed a revision petition under Section 115 CPC, the same cannot be rejected on that count. 13. Rule 83 of the Election Rules, which provides for parties to an election petition, reads as under:- "Rule 83. Parties to the petition. - The person whose election is challenged, and where the petition claims that any other candidate shall be declared as elected in place of such person, every unsuccessful candidate who has polled more vote than such candidate, shall be made respondent to the petition." 14. A bare perusal of the above provision reveals that the person whose election is challenged and where a declaration is sought every unsuccessful candidate, who has polled more votes than the election petitioner is required to be made respondent to the petition. 15. In the present case, the election petitioner has impleaded the returning candidate as well as other candidates to the election petition and, therefore, to that extent the necessary parties to the election petition have been impleaded. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu & Ors. v. Bebi Ghosal & Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 691 , held that the content in the election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election and all others are excluded. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu & Ors. v. Bebi Ghosal & Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 691 , held that the content in the election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election and all others are excluded. Therefore, only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition who are mentioned in Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('RoP Act') and no other and the concept of proper parties is and must remain alien to an election dispute and a person who is not a candidate may not be joined as a respondent to the election petition. 17. Similarly in Michael B. Fernandes v. C.K. Jaffer Sharief & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 521 it was held that the argument that even if somebody may not be a necessary party under the RoP Act, but yet he could be added as a proper party as provided in Order I, Rule 10 CPC cannot be accepted as the provisions of the CPC apply to election disputes only as far as may be and subject to the provisions of the RoP Act. 18. In view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu (supra) and Michael B. Fernandes (supra) it is apparent that only the parties required to be impleaded in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules are the necessary parties to the election petition and on other. 19. In the present case, the election petitioner apparently on account of over anxiety has impleaded the District Electoral Officer as well as the Returning Officer as party respondents in the election petition, who are not necessary parties to the election petition. 20. The impleadment of unnecessary parties also cannot have much implication as Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Yadiyurappa v. Mahalingappa & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 301 held that if apart from necessary parties others are also impleaded, the same would not result in dismissal of the election petition. 21. 20. The impleadment of unnecessary parties also cannot have much implication as Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Yadiyurappa v. Mahalingappa & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 301 held that if apart from necessary parties others are also impleaded, the same would not result in dismissal of the election petition. 21. Besides the fact that the provisions of CPC under Rule 85 of the Election Rules have been made applicable in so far as it can be made applicable in the hearing of the petition as laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Sushila (supra) and explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash (supra), the fact that the petitioner unnecessarily chose to make the Electoral Officer and the Returning Officer as parties to the election petition, merely by dint of provisions of Order 27, Rule5A CPC cannot turn the State as a necessary party to the election petition. 22. Even under the provisions of Order 27, Rule 5A CPC, the necessity of impleading the Government as a party to the suit is in a case where the suit is instituted against a public officer for damages or other relief in respect of any act alleged to have been done by him in official capacity. 23. In a case where a public officer has been impleaded as a party despite the public officer not being a necessary party to such a litigation, rather against the settled position of law, it cannot be said that on account of such unnecessary impleadment, the provisions of Order 27, Rule 5A CPC are attracted or can be invoked for the purpose of alleging non-impleadment of a necessary party under Order I, Rule 9 CPC. 24. So far as the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the learned Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that none of the judgments pertained to election petition. The provisions of Order 27, Rule 5A CPC could only be invoked if the impleadment of the Electoral Officer and the Returning Officer was in any manner justified in the election petition and, as such, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case. 25. The provisions of Order 27, Rule 5A CPC could only be invoked if the impleadment of the Electoral Officer and the Returning Officer was in any manner justified in the election petition and, as such, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case. 25. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that merely by impleadment of the Electoral Officer and the Returning Officer as respondents to the election petition, the Government/State is a necessary party to the election petition filed by the respondent. 26. Consequently, there is no substance in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.