ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. Impugned in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the judgment dated 16-1-2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kishangarh Bas, Alwar District Alwar, where under the election petition filed by the respondent-election petitioner (hereinafter the EP') challenging the election of the petitioner-returned candidate (hereinafter 'the RC') was allowed and the election of RC as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Teuwas, Panchayat Samiti Kotkasim District Alwar set aside. 2. Election of the RC to the post of Sarpanch of village Panchayat Teuwas aforesaid was called in question under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994') read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1994') by the EP inter alia alleging that the RC had contested the election to the post Sarpanch on the basis of a forged certificate of having passed class VIII examination from Amedkar Junior School Raya Road, Priti Vihar Mathura. Therefore her election to the post of Sarpanch of village Teuwas was liable to be set aside. 3. The RC filed reply of denial stating that she had passed 8th class in 1974-75 from Ambedkar Junior School Raya Road, Priti Vihar Mathura and obtained a duplicate mark-sheet on 5-7-2011 from the said school. 4. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed two issues. Loosely translated, the first was whether the RC contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of village panchayat Teuwas on 24- 1-2015 on the basis of wrong declaration in the nomination form as to her educational qualification and a forged certificate and therefore her election was liable to be declared void and the EP declared elected. The second issue related to relief. 5. In support of the election petition, the EP examined herself as Aw-1, Rohitash Aw-2, Nawal Kishor AW-3, Ratan Lal Aw-4, and Ishwar Singh Aw-5. The RC examined herself as Naw-1, Aameen Khan, Naw-2 and Umar Mohammad as Naw-3. 6. On consideration of the evidence before it, the trial court found that the class VIII mark-sheet of the RC was forged and from her cross examination it was evident that she was illiterate. The election petition was thus allowed and RC's election to the post of Sarpanch of village panchayat Teuwas was declared invalid and consequently set aside. 7. Mr. On consideration of the evidence before it, the trial court found that the class VIII mark-sheet of the RC was forged and from her cross examination it was evident that she was illiterate. The election petition was thus allowed and RC's election to the post of Sarpanch of village panchayat Teuwas was declared invalid and consequently set aside. 7. Mr. Hanuman Chaudhary, counsel for the RC has submitted that the trial court committed a perversity in setting aside the election of the RC. He submitted that the RC was holding a valid mark-sheet of having passed class VIII from the Ambedkar Junior School Raya Road, Pritivihar Mathura which the trial court has perversely held to be forged. He submitted that the impugned judgment thus be set aside. 8. Counsel for EP supported the impugned judgment. 9. Heard learned counsel for the RC and EP. Perused the impugned judgment dated 16-1-2017. Considered. The trial court held as under:- ^^mi[k.M vf/kdkjh dksVdkfle }kjk Hkh ckn tkWap mDr ijh{kkQy fooj.k dks lansgkLin ekuk x;k Fkk ftl ij laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj }kjk Hkh mi[k.M vf/kdkjh dksVdkfle ls fjiksVZ ryc dh x;h Fkh o mi[k.M vf/kdkjh dksVdkfle }kjk laHkkxh; vk;qDr laHkkx t;iqj dks izLrqr fjiksVZ esa f'k{kk vf/kdkjh jk;k eFkqjk o ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh eFkqjk dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij vukjnsbZ ds fo:) vacsMdj twfu;j fo|ky; jk;k jksM+ izhfr fogkj eFkqjk dks lafnX/k gksuk ekurs gq, mDr vadi= dks QthZ gksus dh fjiksVZ nh x;h Fkh tks izn'kZ 18 gSA** In the enquiry held by the Sub Division Officer Kotkasim on directions by the Divisional Commissioner the RC's mark sheet was found forged vide report dated 29-4-2015 (Ex.17). The trial court relied on the report Ex.1 as a public document referable to Section 74 of the Evidence Act. 10. Further it was also proved before the trial court that to operate her bank account maintained with the Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank Bhonkar the RC was using her thumb impression. 11. In Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram [ (1984)2 SCC 281 ], also an election case, a Three Judge bench of the Apex Court held that in the facts of a given case, the court could hold as proved a fact if a reasonable probability on the evidence on record supported the conclusion. It was held that an impossible standard of proof should not be laid down. It was held that an impossible standard of proof should not be laid down. The above enunciation applies fully to the instant case where the EP had proved from evidence laid before the trial court that the RC's class VIII mark-sheet was a forged one and that she was an illiterate lady because she admittedly operated her bank account through thumb impression. 12. In the case of Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra [ (1977)1 SCC 133 ] the Apex Court has held that the result of a trial or proceeding is determined by a weighing of the totality of facts and circumstances and presumptions operating in favour of one party as against those which may tilt the balance in favour of another. The weight of the evidence would be wholly against the party which did not bring any competing evidence before the trial court to displace the evidence of the other party buttressed by Sections 114 (e) of the Evidence Act. In my considered opinion, therefore the voluminous evidence led by the witnesses of the election petitioner could not have been disbelieved in the facts of the case. On her part the RC had failed to bring on record any evidence of probative worth to dilute and rubbish the evidence of the election petitioner as she was under a legal duty with reference to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. No attempt was made to place on record of the trial court the birth certificate by the competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, ration-card of the family members reflecting the age of the RC. It was for the RC to have laid positive evidence of probative worth before the trial court to dislodge the contra evidence of her date of birth amongst others from government documents. Reference in this regard can be had to L.N. Gadodia & Sons v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [ 2011(13) SCC 517 ], wherein the Apex Court held as under:- ... When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact lies on him. This rule (which is also embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act) expects such a party to produce the best evidence before the authority concerned, failing which the authority cannot be faulted for drawing the necessary inference. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact lies on him. This rule (which is also embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act) expects such a party to produce the best evidence before the authority concerned, failing which the authority cannot be faulted for drawing the necessary inference. It would also be profitable to refer to the Evidence Act. It defines proved as under:- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. 13. Proof of a fact is thus not dependent on a singular piece of evidence. It is a conclusion struck on consideration of multiplicity of evidences, laid by contesting parties, leading a prudent man to the supposition of the existence of a fact. 14. It was thus proved to the satisfaction of the trial court on a wholistic appreciation of documentary and oral evidence of the witnesses on record that the RC's mark-sheet was forged one, she was illiterate and that she was not eligible to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch in view of Section 19 of the Act of 1994. 15. I am of the considered view that the trial court in coming to its conclusion has acted reasonably as would a prudent man in coming to a conclusion that the RC had not contested the election to the post of Sarpanch on the basis of correct mark-sheet and she was an illiterate lady. No perversity nor patent illegality can be found in the trial court's judgment. Nor is the impugned judgment vitiated by an error of jurisdiction. 16. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this court's powers are not appellate. For invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court or for that matter its supervisory jurisdiction, the impugned judgment has to be established by the petitioner to be without jurisdiction, in violation of statutory provisions, misdirected in law and having entailed manifest injustice. None of the aforesaid situation/s is/are made out in the present case. For invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court or for that matter its supervisory jurisdiction, the impugned judgment has to be established by the petitioner to be without jurisdiction, in violation of statutory provisions, misdirected in law and having entailed manifest injustice. None of the aforesaid situation/s is/are made out in the present case. The impugned judgment dated 16-1-2017 passed by the trial court is well considered, rooted in evidence before it and suffers no lacunae to warrant interference by this court. For the aforesaid discussion, I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.