JUDGMENT : 1. The instant petition is directed against order dt. 24.9.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kota, in Election Petition No.04/2015, whereby the application filed u/O.7 R.11 read with Sec. 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts noticed are that election was conducted of Sarpanch under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, and admittedly the result was declared on 1.2.2015 and election petition came to be filed by the respondent on 3.3.2015. An application u/O.7 R.11 CPC was filed on two premises, inter alia, claiming that – (1) the election petition has been filed beyond limitation of 30 days, and (2) that there was no proper attestation in the election petition nor was signed by the respondent. 3. The trial court vide the impugned order noticed that the day of declaration of result is to be excluded and taking into consideration the fact that the month February had only 28 days, the limitation of 30 days was to be over on 3.3.2015 and admittedly the revision petition was filed on 3.3.2015 itself and thus concluded that the election petition is within time and the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected. 4. Insofar as the second issue raised is concerned, the trial court found after perusing the election petition that it was duly signed by the respondent and duly attested and an affidavit was also filed in support of the election petition and thus on both the counts the application u/O.7 R.11 CPC was dismissed. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the language used in R.80 of the Rules clearly states that the word used is “on”, therefore, “on” means it should include the day of declaration of result and if the same is taken into consideration then the petition has been filed beyond the limitation period and thus the objection raised by the petitioner was just and proper and ought to have been considered in a correct manner. 6. Learned counsel further contended that each and every document and enclosure is required to be duly signed and attested by the person challenging the election and specific objection was raised that the election petition was not signed and sealed by the respondent on all the papers/documents including the enclosures and, therefore, it is to be rejected, as such and contends that this petition requires consideration. 7. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the trial court by a reasoned order has come to a specific conclusion after analysing the judgments and the material on record and is not required to be interfered with. He further contended that the trial court has rightly concluded that the election petition was filed within 30 days and the day of election has certainly to be excluded and relied on the judgment of Apex court in the case of Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma, (2000) 8 SCC 649 . 8. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of the court by showing from the election petition that each and every page is duly signed by the respondent and there is an affidavit also which is duly attested and no infirmity has been noticed by the trial court and even otherwise if there is some discrepancy, it is a mere technicality which could be remedied or rectified as is being done everywhere and even in this court and thus, prayed for dismissing of the revision petition. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and in my view the impugned order is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. 10. Admittedly, the result was declared on 1.2.2015. It would be appropriate to quote R.80 of the Rules, which reads thus:- “80. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and in my view the impugned order is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. 10. Admittedly, the result was declared on 1.2.2015. It would be appropriate to quote R.80 of the Rules, which reads thus:- “80. Manner of challenging an election under the Act.- An election under the Act or under the Rules may be called in question by any candidate at such election by presenting a petition to the District Judge having jurisdiction within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election is declared, on any one or more of the following grounds:- (a) that on the date of election, a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, for such election, or (b) that any corrupt practice was committed by a candidate or by any other person with the consent or connivance of the candidate, or (c) that any nomination was improperly rejected, or (d) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate was materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the candidate by a person other than that candidate or by a person acting with the consent or connivance of such candidate, or (iii) by improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which was void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of these rules, or (e) that in fact the petitioner or some other candidate received a majority of the valid votes, or (f) that, but for votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices, the petitioner or some other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes.” 11. Even on a bare perusal of the above Rule, in my view, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be proper and the day of declaration of result is certainly required to be excluded and the period starts from a day after the election results are declared. It is not denied by the petitioner that if this day is excluded, then the petition is in time. It is not denied by the petitioner that if this day is excluded, then the petition is in time. The judgment of the Full Bench of Apex court in the case of Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma (supra) though under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the court has taken an identical view where the issue was similar to the one raised here and in my view it would be appropriate to quote para 15 of the judgment which reads ad infra :- 15. By Section 81(1), the legislation fixes the period for filing election petition and at the same time states that no elector or candidate shall file election petition before the date of election of the returnable candidates and if there are more than one returned candidates at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. The learned senior Counsel for the appellant contended that if the date of election of the candidate is excluded from computing the period of limitation of 45 days, the period of limitation would be extended by one day and, therefore, it is against the mandate of the statute. It was also contended that the filing of the application on the date of election of the returned candidate cannot be considered as a valid presentation of petition as envisaged in the section. We do not think that any such interpretation is possible by a conjoint reading of Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The first day for the period of limitation is required to be excluded for the convenience of the parties and if the declaration of the result is delayed or is done late in the night, the candidate or elector would hardly get any time for presentation of the election petition. Law comes to the rescue of such parties to give full forty-five days period for filing the election petition. Nevertheless, any petition presented on the date of election of the returned candidate would be certainly within the period of limitation as it is a presentation on the date of election of the returned candidate. 16. Law comes to the rescue of such parties to give full forty-five days period for filing the election petition. Nevertheless, any petition presented on the date of election of the returned candidate would be certainly within the period of limitation as it is a presentation on the date of election of the returned candidate. 16. In the instant case, the date of election of the returned candidate being 25-11-1998, the election petition filed on 12-1-1999 on exclusion of the first day from computing the period of limitation, was in time and the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. This appeal is without any merits and the same is dismissed, however, without costs.” 12. In my view the above principles/mandate of the Apex court would be equally applicable in the instant case, though in the above case it was under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, but the same reasoning would hold good in the present petition as well. Accordingly, the contention raised by the petitioner insofar as the period of limitation is concerned, is decided against the petitioner. 13. I have perused the election petition which is annexed by the petitioner herein and a bare perusal of the petition clearly proves that the election petition is duly signed by the respondent supported by an affidavit which is also duly signed and attested. The trial court has already taken into consideration this fact and in my view the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be not proper as it is duly signed and sealed. Even otherwise, this court every day taking into consideration such defects, is rectifying or allowing the petitioners or appellants to remove defects if not signed or as pointed out by the Registry. It is a mere technicality which can always be remedied or rectified and should not come in the way of such technicalities when substantial justice is required to be considered and these small flaws as raised by the petitioner, ought to be rejected at the threshold and rightly rejected in the instant petition. 14. In view of the above, in my view the petition does not survive and accordingly is dismissed. 14. In view of the above, in my view the petition does not survive and accordingly is dismissed. However, the court below will take into consideration all facts and objections if raised by the petitioner and would consider independently in accordance with law, and dispose of the Election Petition expeditiously as per the mandate of law uninfluenced/inhibited in any manner on any of the observations made hereinbefore.