JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Varma, J. Upon the conclusion of the election process with regard to the election of a Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Pipali Majara Gharwra, Block Tappal, Tehsil Khair, District Azamgarh, the results were declared on 13.12.2015 in which Manju-respondent no.2 was declared elected. Three Election Petitions were filed under section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. One by the petitioner-Sangeeta, wife of Rakesh alias Ramesh and was numbered as T-20161602011872 of 2016. The second was filed by Shakuntala Devi-respondent no.3 and was numbered as T-2016180201652 of 2016 and the third Election Petition was filed by respondent no.11-Sangeeta wife of Yashpal which was numbered as T-2016180201257 of 2016. All the three petitions were consolidated on 1.8.2016 as the common relief asked for in all the three Election Petitions was that the election of the candidate who had won namely Smt. Manju be set aside. Upon exchange of pleadings, five issues were framed on 9.8.2016. They were as follows :- ^^01- D;k ernku esa vkpkj lafgrk dk mYya/ku gqvk\ ;fn gkW rks mldk izHkko\ 2- D;k oksVj fyLV ls ckgj ds ernkrkvksa ds }kjk e`rd ernkrk ds LFkku ij vU; O;fDr }kjk ernku fd;k x;k\ ;g gkW rks mldk izHkko\ 3- D;k erx.kuk dfeZ;ksa }kjk erx.kuk esa vfu;ferrk cjrh x;h\ ;fn gkW rks mldk izHkko\ 4- D;k erx.kuk esa gqbZ vfu;ferrk dh f'kdk;r pquko vk;ksx ,oa vU; mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa dks dh xbZ\ ;fn gkW rks mldk izHkko\ 5- D;k ;kphx.kksa }kjk ;kfpdk fof/k ds vuq:Ik izLrqr dh xbZ gS\ ;fn gkW rks mldk izHkko\ 2. On 13.4.2017, an application was filed in Election Petition No.T-2016180201652 of 2016 by Smt. Shakuntala-respondent no.3 in which she had prayed for the re-counting of the votes. Even though the three Election Petitions were consolidated and issues common to all the three Election Petitions were framed on 9.8.2016, the petitioner filed an application on 19.4.2017 in Election Petition No.T-2016180201652 of 2016 (the election petition of Shakuntala Devi) wherein certain prayers were made and it was pleaded that before any order for recounting was passed, it had to be deciphered as to who were the voters who were dead and their names had entered in the voters' list. Further it was prayed that before any recounting was ordered, it had to be seen as to which of the male voters had voted for the female voters. Further it was prayed that before any recounting was ordered, it had to be seen as to which of the male voters had voted for the female voters. Still further it was prayed that the question regarding double voting had to be looked into before the application for recounting which was filed by Shakuntala Devi was adjudicated upon. Subsequently, the petitioner on 17.5.2017 again filed an application that the decision on the application of the petitioner filed on 19.4.2017 had to precede the adjudication of the application which was filed by Shakuntala for recounting. However, on 2.5.2017, the application of Shakuntala for recounting of the votes was allowed. This order was challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition No.21502 of 2017 and on 28.5.2018, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 2.5.2017 was quashed and a direction was issued to the Prescribed Authority that it had to decide the application for recounting in accordance with law within two months from the production of the certified copy of the High Court's order dated 28.5.2018. Thereafter it appears that when the order of this Court was placed before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed another application on 12.11.2018 in the Election Petition of Shakuntala Devi being Election Petition No.T-2016180201652 of 2016 and prayed that the petitioner be allowed to lead evidence and that the decision on her application dated 19.4.2017 and 17.5.2017 had to precede the adjudication on the application for recounting. When this application was rejected by order dated 27.11.2018, the instant writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions : (i) When there were three Election Petitions namely Election Petition No.T-20161602011872 of 2016, Election Petition No.T-2016180201652 of 2016 and Election Petition No.T-2016180201257 and they had been consolidated on 1.8.2016 then all the three election petitioners had to participate in all the proceedings which originated in either of the three petitions. Meaning thereby that if there was an application for recounting in Election Petition No.T-2016180201652 of 2016 of Shakuntala Devi then the petitioner should also be allowed to lead evidence in that particular application. (ii) When the three Election Petitions were consolidated on 1.8.2016, then the only option left with the Prescribed Authority was that the three petitions had to be decided in one go and in all the proceedings, all the parties had to participate. (ii) When the three Election Petitions were consolidated on 1.8.2016, then the only option left with the Prescribed Authority was that the three petitions had to be decided in one go and in all the proceedings, all the parties had to participate. (iii) When the petitioner, by the latest application which she had filed on 12.11.2018, had prayed for leading evidence, then the petitioner should have also been allowed to lead evidence viz-a-viz the application filed for recounting in the Election Petition No. T-2016180201652 of 2016. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court's order which had remitted the matter back to the Tribunal had held that the whole case was open and it was not just the application for recounting which had to be decided at the first instance. (iv) The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 27.11.2018 saying that the law as had been laid down in (Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd., Madurai & Ors. Vs. Somu Transport (P) Ltd. & Ors., (1966) AIR SC 1366) had been misinterpreted and that the petitioner should be allowed to lead evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that even if the three Election Petitions had been consolidated, the petitioner Sangeeta wife of Rakesh alias Ramesh had to confine herself to the issues which pertained to her Election Petition. Learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of the Court to paragraph 1 of the grounds of Election Petition of the petitioner and submitted that the Election Petition was based essentially only on three grounds, that is: (i) the votes were caste of such persons who were dead; (ii) such persons, who were not residing in the village had voted; and (iii) such voters whose names had been entered in the voters list of other villages had also cast their votes in the election of the village that had been challenged. 5. 5. Since, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon paragraph 1 of the grounds of the Election Petition No.T-20161802011872 of 2016, the same is being reproduced here as under: ^^;g dh ernku fnukad 5-12-2015 Lora= ,oa fu"i{k ugha gqvk gSA ernku vf/kdkjh ,oa deZpkfj;ksa ls dbZ ckj f'kdk;r dh xbZ fd e`rd O;fDr;ksa@efgykvksa ds oksV QthZ rjhds ls Mkys tk jgs gSA vki QthZ er Mkyus okyksa ds f[kykQ dk;Zokgh D;ksa ugh dj jgs gksA rFkk tks ernkrk oksV Mkyus ugh vk;s gS rFkk tks ckgj ds gS muds LFkku ij QthZ rjhds ls vU; yksxks ls oksV D;ks Myok jgs gksA rFkk ftu O;fDr;ksa ds oksVjfyLV esa nks nks&rhu rhu ckj uke xyr ntZ gS muds oksV Mcy 2 D;ksa Myok jgs gks rks ernku vf/kdkjh ,o adeZpkfj;ksa us fdlh fd Hkh ugh lquh vkSj jsLiksŒ uacj 1 o 2 ls lkt djds buds i{k esa voS/k ernku djkrs jgsA vr% ernku fd lEkLr izfØ;k fujLRk@jnn dh tkuh vko';d gSA^^ 6. Learned counsel for the respondents thereafter made the following submissions : (i) If the issues were perused, then it becomes clear that the petitioner Sangeeta wife of Rakesh was only interested in Issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 and, therefore, she could not have been interested in the recounting at all. (ii) When the petitioner, by the application which she had filed on 12.11.2018, had prayed that the applications filed by her on 19.4.2017 and 17.5.2017 had to be decided prior in point of time and before the decision on the application for recounting, then the question did not arise for granting the petitioner any opportunity to participate in the proceedings which were going on for deciding as to whether recounting had to take place or not. (iii) Learned counsel relying upon (Cumbum Roadways (P) Ltd., Madurai & Ors. Vs. Somu Transport (P) Ltd. & Ors., (1966) AIR SC 1366) submitted that only such parties which had taken up the issue regarding recounting alone could have participated in the recounting. (iv) If Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C. is perused, it becomes sufficiently clear that the Court had to pronounce judgment on all the issues and, therefore, the petitioner was unnecessarily worried about the issues which did not concern her Election Petition at this stage and when the stage would arrive for the decision of issues which pertained to the petitioner then they would definitely be decided. (v) The petitioner was unnecessarily worried that the issues with regard to her election petition would not be decided because the judgment had to be passed on all the issues and unless a judgment is passed on all the issues, the Tribunal's decision would become erroneous. (vi) If the application for recounting was allowed, then it would not mean that the Election Petition would be disposed of. The result of the recounting would only facilitate the Tribunal in coming to a decision as to whether the election in favour of Manju-contesting respondent had to be set aside or not. (vii) Since the petitioner Sangeeta, wife of Rakesh had always been only insisting upon the decision of the issues which pertained to her Election Petition, it mattered little as to whether the issues which pertained to her Election Petition were decided prior to the decision on the issue of recounting or subsequent to it. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Tribunal correctly passed the order rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 12.11.2018. The issues as were framed on 9.8.2016 definitely contained the issues on the basis of which the Election Petition of the petitioner was based. Which of the issues was to be decided prior in point of time mattered little. However, since the Election Petition of Shakuntala was with regard to erroneous counting and if the Tribunal was deciding the question of recount at the first instance, then there was absolutely no defect as quite often the decision for recounting, if arrived at after looking into all the parameters, is taken correctly, then the Election Petition gets decided very expeditiously. Therefore, the petitioner should not be unnecessarily hassled as to whether the issues pertaining to her Election Petition were decided before the issue regarding recounting or after it. Further, I am of the definite opinion that when the petitioner was all through wanting only the decision of her application which was with regard to votes being cast of dead persons, imposters casting votes and voters being enlisted in two or more lists, then the petitioner can have no interest in the application which Shakuntala had filed in her Election Petition for recounting. 8. Under such circumstances, I find that there is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Under such circumstances, I find that there is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. The Tribunal shall now, in pursuance of the order dated 28.5.2018, decide the application of Shakuntala in Election Petition No.T-2016180201652 of 2016 within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order and thereafter give its finding individually on all the five issues which it had framed on 9.6.2016. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed.