JUDGMENT : Manoj Misra, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by returned candidate against the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Kasganj in Election Petition No. 01 of 2017 by which amendment application 18-A2 filed by the election-petitioner (respondent) seeking amendment in the election petition has been allowed on costs of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that election for the post of Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Bilram, District Kasganj was notified. Pursuant to the notification, polling took place on 22.11.2017 and, after counting of votes, on 01.12.2017, the petitioner was declared elected. Within 30 days after the day of declaration of result, on 12.12.2017, the respondent, who was an unsuccessful candidate, filed Election Petition No. 01 of 2017. The election petition, as presented, neither sought relief to declare the election petitioner elected in the room of the returned candidate nor it impleaded other unsuccessful candidates as respondents in the election petition. The election petition, as presented, had only prayed that the election of the returned candidate be declared null and void and the post of Chairperson, Nagar Panchayat Bilram, District Kasganj be declared vacant. 3. To the said election petition, a written statement was filed by the petitioner taking various pleas. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the election petition as framed was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 20 (3) & (4) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short 'Act, 1916'). It was claimed that as the election petitioner had not claimed that he be declared elected in the room of the person whose election was questioned and other unsuccessful candidates were not made party respondent, as required by sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act, 1916, the election petition was not maintainable at the instance of the election petitioner alone and was liable to be rejected under section 22 (1) of the Act, 1916. 4. Upon receipt of the written statement, the election petitioner (the respondent herein) filed an application no. 18-A2 on 31.03.2018, under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., seeking amendment in the election petition to add relief to the effect that the election petitioner be declared elected in the room of the returned candidate as also to implead other unsuccessful candidates as respondents. Upon receipt of the written statement, the election petitioner (the respondent herein) filed an application no. 18-A2 on 31.03.2018, under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., seeking amendment in the election petition to add relief to the effect that the election petitioner be declared elected in the room of the returned candidate as also to implead other unsuccessful candidates as respondents. This amendment application was resisted by the petitioner by claiming that such an amendment materially changes the nature of the election petition and since it has been filed after expiry of the period of limitation provided for filing an election petition, it cannot be allowed. 5. By the impugned order, the Ist Additional District Judge, Kasganj allowed the amendment application. 6. I have heard Sri M.N. Singh for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh for the sole respondent. 7. As the petition raised a pure question of law, Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, who appeared for the respondent, did not pray for time to file counter-affidavit and therefore the matter was heard finally. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Act, 1916 is a self-contained code concerning election of members. It not only provides for the qualifications but also the manner in which the election is to be conducted including the grounds and the manner in which the declaration is to be challenged. Section 19 of the Act, 1916 provides for the grounds on which election of any person as a member of a Nagar Panchayat could be questioned by an election petition. Section 20 of the Act, 1916 provides for the form and presentation of election petition. Sub-section (1) of section 20 provides that an election petition shall be presented within 30 days after the day on which the result of the election sought to be questioned is announced by the Returning Officer. Sub-section (3) of section 20 provides that the petition may be presented by any candidate in whose favour votes have been recorded and who claims in the petition to be declared elected in the room of the person whose election is questioned or by ten or more electors of the municipality or by a person who claims that his nomination paper was improperly rejected. Sub-section (4) of section 20 provides that the person whose election is questioned and, where the petitioner claims that any other candidate should be declared elected in the room of such person, every unsuccessful candidate who is not a petitioner in the petition shall be made a respondent to the petition. 9. According to the petitioner, the election petition was not presented by 10 or more electors of the municipality and the election petitioner had not claimed that his nomination paper was improperly rejected. Therefore the election petition at the instance of a solitary election petitioner could have been maintainable only if he had prayed that he be declared elected in the room of the person whose election was being questioned. It has been submitted that since the election petition had suffered from a fundamental defect, it was liable to be rejected under section 22(1) of the Act, 1916 except when those defects were removed within the time allowed by the Court, which cannot exceed the limit specified in section 22. It has been stated that 30 days limitation period is provided for presentation of the election petition and 14 days is the period to comply with the requirements of the provisions of section 20 in case there had been no compliance of the provisions at the time of presentation of the election petition. 10. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that subsection (4) of section 20 provides that if the election petitioner claims that any other candidate is to be declared elected in the room of such person then, every unsuccessful candidate, who is not a petitioner in the petition, is to be made a respondent to the petition. It is thus the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of non-compliance of the requirements of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 20 of the Act, 1916, the petition was liable to be rejected under Section 22. But, instead of rejecting the said petition, the court below entertained the amendment application and allowed the election petitioner to remove fundamental defects in the petition that too on an application which was filed beyond the period of limitation. 11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the general power to allow amendment available to an election tribunal under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is subject to the provisions of the Act, 1916. 11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the general power to allow amendment available to an election tribunal under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is subject to the provisions of the Act, 1916. It has thus been contended that the order of the court below allowing the amendment application, which was filed after the period prescribed for presentation of the election petition had expired, is manifestly erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 12. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on following decisions:- (a) Faizan Ali Khan v. Member of Election Tribunal, Pilibhit at Bareilly : 1968 A.L.J. 70 wherein it was held that where a claim is made by the election petitioner to be declared elected in the room of the returned candidate all unsuccessful candidates are necessary parties and if they are not impleaded there would be non-compliance of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 20 and the election petition would be liable to be rejected under Section 20 of the Act, 1916. (b) Decision dated 03.01.2011 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49425 of 2010 (Smt. Heera Devi vs. Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Hamirpur and others), wherein it was held that U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 is a self-contained Code qua holding of elections and qua challenge to the said elections and it does not leave any scope for extension of the period of limitation by taking aid of the provisions of Limitation Act. (c) Harish Chandra Bajpai and another vs. Triloki Singh and another : AIR 1957 SC 444 wherein the apex court in the context of the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 had held that though the Tribunal has power under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. to order amendment of a petition, but that power cannot be exercised so as to permit new grounds or charges to be raised or to so alter its character as to make it in substance a new petition, if a fresh petition on those allegations by then be barred. (d) K. Venkateswara Rao vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddy : 1969 AIR SC 872 wherein the apex court in the context of the provisions of Representation of People Act had observed that amendments to a petition in a civil proceeding and the addition of parties to such a proceeding are generally possible subject to the law of limitation. But an election petition stands on a different footing. The trial of such a petition and the powers of the court in respect thereof are all circumscribed by the Act. It was observed that the Representation of People Act is a complete and self-contained code which does not admit of introduction of the principles or the provisions of law contained in the Limitation Act or the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to the addition of the parties, which is possible in a case of suit under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10. It was observed that no addition of parties is possible in the case of an election petition except under the provisions of the Act which must be within the period of limitation for presentation of the petition. (e) Shahbaz Bano Gram Pradhan vs. Sahiba Bano : 2002 (49) ALR 732 wherein it was held that right to seek election and right to challenge election is not a common law right. The said right has to be exercised in accordance with statutory rules. 13. By placing reliance on all the above judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since on the date of filing of the amendment application, a fresh election petition could not have been filed, as it had become barred by limitation provided by the Act, 1916, the amendments sought, which not only changed the character of the election petition but also sought to remove fundamental defects in the election petition that could have resulted in its dismissal under Section 22 of the Act, 1916, could not have been entertained and allowed as has been done by the court below. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the election petitioner has submitted that under Section 23 of the Act, 1916, the Election Tribunal is to follow the procedure provided in the Civil Procedure Code and therefore, by necessary implication, the Election Tribunal is vested with all the powers to allow amendment which are not prohibited by the Act, 1916. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the election petitioner has submitted that under Section 23 of the Act, 1916, the Election Tribunal is to follow the procedure provided in the Civil Procedure Code and therefore, by necessary implication, the Election Tribunal is vested with all the powers to allow amendment which are not prohibited by the Act, 1916. It has been submitted by him that the election petition was presented within the period of limitation and the amendment sought was to seek a declaration for the election petitioner and to implead the unsuccessful candidates as respondents. There was therefore no change in the character of the election petition because the election petition had already challenged the election of the returned candidate. Hence, the court below was well within its jurisdiction to allow the amendment. 15. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the election petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Smt. Sarita Gupta vs. Sneh Kamal Seth and another : 2010 (2) AWC 1688 wherein a Single Judge of this Court had held that an amendment in the election petition can be allowed by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act, 1916 which confers power of a Civil Court on an Election Tribunal. 16. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the election petition as instituted was not defective which may result in its rejection under Section 22 of the Act, 1916 inasmuch as there is no requirement to implead unsuccessful candidates if no declaration is sought by the election petitioner that he be declared elected in the room of the returned candidate. Under the circumstances, the election petition would be deemed an election petition just to question the result of the returned candidate and to declare the post vacant for being filled by subsequent election. Under the circumstances, the election petition would be deemed an election petition just to question the result of the returned candidate and to declare the post vacant for being filled by subsequent election. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in Ramanand Gaur vs. Ram Sanehi and others : (2012) 2 UPLBEC 1405 wherein, a Single Judge of this Court, in the context of elections under the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, had taken a view that in absence of impleadment of unsuccessful candidates in the election petition, the relief of declaring the election of the returned candidate as null and void can still be granted though the election petitioner would not be declared elected. 17. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. 18. Before proceeding to address the weight of the rival submissions, it would be useful to examine the provisions of sections 20, 22 and 23 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Sections 20, 22 and 23 of the Act, 1916 are extracted below:- “20. From and presentation of election petitions:- (1) An election petition shall be presented within 30 days after the day on which the result of the election sought to be questioned is announced by the Returning Officer, and shall specify the ground or grounds on which the election of the respondent is questioned and shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and set forth the full particulars of any corrupt practices that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practices and the dates and place of the commission of each such practice. (2) The petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings. (3) The petition may be presented by any candidate in whose favour votes have been recorded and who claims in the petition to be declared elected in the room of the person whose election is questioned or by ten or more electors of the municipality or by a person who claims that his nomination paper was improperly rejected. (3) The petition may be presented by any candidate in whose favour votes have been recorded and who claims in the petition to be declared elected in the room of the person whose election is questioned or by ten or more electors of the municipality or by a person who claims that his nomination paper was improperly rejected. (4) The person whose election is questioned and, where the petitioner claims that any other candidate should be declared elected in the room of such person, every unsuccessful candidate who is not a petitioner in the petition shall be made a respondent to the petition. (5) The petition shall be presented to the District Judge exercising jurisdiction in the area in which the municipality, to which the election petition relates, is situate: Provided that the petition shall not be entertained by the District Judge unless it is accompanied by a treasury challan showing that the prescribed security has been deposited. 22. Hearing of election petition:-(1) An election petition not complying with the provisions of Section 20 or upon which the requisite court fee has not been paid at the time of presentation or within such further time not exceeding fourteen days as the District Judge, as the case may be, may have granted , shall be rejected by such judge. (2) An election petition not rejected under sub-section (1) shall be heard by the District Judge. 23. Procedure. (2) An election petition not rejected under sub-section (1) shall be heard by the District Judge. 23. Procedure. -Except so far as may be otherwise provided by this Act or by Rule, the procedure provided in the Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908) in regard to suits, shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with this Act or any rule and so far it can be made applicable, be followed in the hearing of election petitions : Provided that, - (a) two or more persons whose election is called in question may be made respondents to the same petition, and their cases may be tried at the same time, and any two or more election petitions may be heard together; but, so far as is consistent with such joint trial or hearing, the petition shall be deemed to be separate petition against each respondent; (b) the [District Judge] shall not be required to record or have recorded the evidence in full, but shall make a memorandum of the evidence sufficient in its option for the purpose of deciding the case; (c) the [District Judge] may, at any stage of the proceedings, require the petitioner to give [* * *] further security for the payment of all costs incurred or likely to be incurred by any respondent; (d) the [District Judge] for the purpose of deciding any issue, shall only be bound to require the production of, or to receive so much evidence, oral or documentary, as it considers necessary; (e) during the hearing of the case the [District Judge] may refer a question of law to the High Court under Order XLVI of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but there shall be no appeal either on a question of law or fact, and no application in revision against or in respect of the decision of the[District Judge]; [(f) any person considering himself aggrieved by the decision may apply for review to the] [District Judge] within thirty days from the date of the decision and the[District Judge] may thereupon review the decision on any point; [Provided that in computing the period of limitation the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply.]” 19. Perusal of the above provisions would go to show that an election petition is to be presented within 30 days after the day on which the result of the election sought to be questioned is announced by the Returning Officer. Sub-section (3) of section 20 provides that the petition may be presented by any candidate in whose favour votes have been recorded and who claims in the petition to be declared elected in the room of the person whose election is questioned or by ten or more electors of the municipality or by a person who claims that his nomination paper was improperly rejected. Sub-section (4) of section 20 provides that the person whose election is questioned and, where the petitioner claims that any other candidate should be declared elected in the room of such person, every unsuccessful candidate who is not a petitioner in the petition shall be made a respondent to the petition. Subsection (1) of section 22 provides that an election petition not complying with the provisions of Section 20 or upon which the requisite court fee has not been paid at the time of presentation or within such further time not exceeding fourteen days as the District Judge, as the case may be, may have granted, shall be rejected by such judge. Sub-section (2) of section 22 provides that an election petition not rejected under sub-section (1) shall be heard by the District Judge. Section 23 provides that except so far as may be otherwise provided by this Act or by Rule, the procedure provided in the Civil Procedure Code in regard to suits, shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with this Act or any rule and so far it can be made applicable, be followed in the hearing of election petitions. 20. By virtue of section 23 of the Act, 1916, courts have applied the general provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow amendments. However, a plain reading of section 23 of the Act, 1916 would go to show that general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure could be applied only if there is no inconsistent provision in the Act or the Rules. However, a plain reading of section 23 of the Act, 1916 would go to show that general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure could be applied only if there is no inconsistent provision in the Act or the Rules. Sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act, 1916 clearly provides that where the election petition claims that any other candidate should be declared elected in the room of such person whose election is questioned, every unsuccessful candidates, if not impleaded as the petitioner, be made a respondent to the petition. A defect in that regard would have to be dealt with in the manner provided in Section 22 of the Act, 1916. Under the circumstances, the general powers available under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. cannot be invoked to remove a defect that may warrant rejection of the petition under Section 22 of the Act, 1916, unless removal of such defect is sought within such period of time as may be permissible under the Act, 1916. 21. The decision of the apex court in the case of Harish Chandra's case (supra) as well as K. Venkateswara Rao's case (supra) is clear on the issue that power under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. cannot be exercised to alter the character of the election petition so as to make it in substance a new petition, if a fresh petition on that cause of action would by then be barred. 22. In the instant case, the election petition as instituted was only to declare the election of the returned candidate as null and void. There was no prayer by the election petitioner to declare him elected in the room of the person whose election was questioned i.e. the returned candidate. With the amendment, the character of the petition was sought to be changed so as to include a relief for such declaration and, to maintain such a relief, to add every unsuccessful candidate as party respondent. 23. Admittedly, the amendment application was filed after the period of limitation provided under the Act, 1916 for presentation of such an election petition had expired. Therefore such an amendment application could not have been entertained and allowed in view of the law laid down by the apex court in Harish Chandra's case (supra) and K. Venkateswara Rao's case (supra). 23. Admittedly, the amendment application was filed after the period of limitation provided under the Act, 1916 for presentation of such an election petition had expired. Therefore such an amendment application could not have been entertained and allowed in view of the law laid down by the apex court in Harish Chandra's case (supra) and K. Venkateswara Rao's case (supra). The decision in Smt. Sarita Gupta's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, with due respect, cannot come to the rescue of the respondent inasmuch as the said decision fails to notice the apex court's decisions that have been noticed herein above. 24. At this stage, it may be observed that as the court below has not expressed any opinion with respect to the maintainability of the election petition either on account of absence of other unsuccessful candidates or non-compliance of the provisions of section 20(3) of the Act, 1916, this Court does not consider it appropriate to express any opinion in that regard and, therefore, it is left open to the parties to address the court below on the said issue. 25. In view of the discussion made above, the petition deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Kasganj in Election Petition No. 1 of 2017 is hereby set aside. The amendment application 18-A2 shall stand rejected. There is no order as to costs.