ORDER : ALOK SHARMA, J. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 19.5.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bayana (Bharatpur) on the petitioner-returned candidate's (hereinafter ‘RC’) application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC whereby the Trial Court directed purportedly in the context of Rule 83 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter ‘Rules of 1994’) that the respondent-Election Petitioner (hereinafter ‘EP’) implead one Dashrath and another Mahendra who had also contested the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Gajipur, Panchayat Samiti Bayana, Dist. Bharatpur and lost but obtained more votes than the EP. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 19.5.2016 3. It is indeed true that the Rule 83 of the Rules of 1994 provides that where a EP prays in the election petition that he be declared as elected after the RC's election being set aside, the other defeated candidates who poll more vote than the EP shall also be impleaded as defendants in the election petition. And from the admitted facts on record it is evident that in the election to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Gajipur, Panchayat Samiti Bayana while the RC obtained 922 votes, one Dashrath got 491 votes, another Mahendra 636 votes and the EP 446 votes. Dashrath and Mahendra with evidently more votes than the EP, in the EP's petition inter-alia seeking to be declared elected as Sarpanch after the RC's election was set aside were required to be impleaded as defendants. That evidently was not done. The Trial Court has under impugned order now so directed instead of rejecting the election petition as the RC submits the trial court ought to have on his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 4. I am however of the considered view that the non-impleadment by the EP, of the other two loosing candidates who had secured more votes than him cannot entail rejection of the election petition. The relief of the election of the RC being set aside on the one hand and of the EP being declared elected on the other, being severable, only the EP's claim/relief of being declared elected, would be liable to be rejected. In any event a claim by a EP, in a multi-polar contest, to be elected was legally unsustainable. The relief of the election of the RC being set aside on the one hand and of the EP being declared elected on the other, being severable, only the EP's claim/relief of being declared elected, would be liable to be rejected. In any event a claim by a EP, in a multi-polar contest, to be elected was legally unsustainable. The election petition consequently would thereafter be treated to be duly constituted and maintainable. 5. Yet it would be appropriate to declare that on/an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the trial court could not have directed the impleadment of Mahendra and Dashrath as parties in the election petition. The impugned order dated 19.05.2016 to that extent is without jurisdiction and hence quashed and set aside. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.