JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. In this Intra Court Appeal, the appellant assails the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6886 of 2018, thereby refusing to interfere with the order dated 18.04.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandapur in Election Misc. Case No.1 of 2017. 2. As per the order dated 18.04.2018, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandapur directed for re-counting of the ballot papers. The said order was challenged in W.P.(C) No.6886 of 2018. Learned Single Judge has held that even though there is no prayer in the election petition for recounting of the ballot papers and even though there is no elaborate discussion on the allegation of the election petitioner involving recounting, he held that there is clear foundation for re-counting of votes and refused to interfere with the matter. It is also seen that the learned Single Judge considering the rival contentions of the parties, on perusal of the pleadings involving the election dispute and from the pleadings at paragraph nos.7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, come to the conclusion and found that there is sufficient pleading involving the claim for illegal counting as well as duplicacy in casting of votes. But learned Single Judge has not given any reason for coming to such conclusion, nor there has been any discussion about the pleadings which were considered by him to be sufficient. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, draws attention of this Court to an un-reported judgment of this Court i.e. the judgment passed in the case of Gourahari Pradhan vrs.- Achyutananda Jena (W.P.(C) No.16030 of 2018 on 21.12.2018, wherein this Court has held as follows: "6. Taking into account the decision of this Court in all the above three decisions, this Court finds, this Court in its Division Bench is of the one view that consideration of the request for calling for ballot papers and order of re-counting should be based on consideration of the pleading along with the evidence adduced by the parties concerned. It is in the circumstances, this Court considering the impugned order finds, the Tribunal though finally allowed the application for calling for the ballot papers for re-counting purpose but has not at all considered the evidence vis- -vis the pleading for the purpose. This, therefore, observers, there is no proper consideration by the Tribunal in considering such application. It is in the circumstances, this Court considering the impugned order finds, the Tribunal though finally allowed the application for calling for the ballot papers for re-counting purpose but has not at all considered the evidence vis- -vis the pleading for the purpose. This, therefore, observers, there is no proper consideration by the Tribunal in considering such application. The decision of the Tribunal also remains opposed in the settled provision of law." 4. So, as per the judgment in the aforesaid case, the evidence as well as the pleadings have to be discussed and this has not been done either by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Anandapur nor by the learned Single Judge. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further relies upon the reported judgment of this Court i.e. in the case of Narayan Chandra Nayak vrs.- Harish Chandra Jena and two others,2009 Supp1 OrissaLR 513, wherein after taking into consideration of plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme, it has been held as follows: "(i) The Court must be satisfied that a prima facie case is established; (ii) The material facts and full particulars must have been pleaded stating the irregularities in counting of votes; (iii) A roving and fishing inquiry should not be directed by way of an order to recount the voters; (iv) An opportunity should be given to file objection; (v) Secrecy of the ballot requires to be guarded." 6. In Narayan Chandra Nayak (supra), the reported judgment in the case of Chanda Singh vrs.- Choudhary Shiv Ram Verma, (1975) AIR SC 403 has been relied upon, wherein the Supreme Court have held as follows: "A democracy runs smooth on the wheels of periodic and pure elections. The verdict at the polls announced by the Returning Officers leads to the formation of Governments. A certain amount of stability in the electoral process is essential. If the counting of the ballots are interfered with by too frequent, and flippant recounts by courts a new threat to the certainty of the poll system is introduced through the judicial instrument. Moreover, the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct becomes exposed to deleterious prying if recount of votes is made easy. If the counting of the ballots are interfered with by too frequent, and flippant recounts by courts a new threat to the certainty of the poll system is introduced through the judicial instrument. Moreover, the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct becomes exposed to deleterious prying if recount of votes is made easy. The general reaction, if there is judicial relaxation on this issue, may well be a fresh pressure on luckless candidates, particularly when the winning margin is only of a few hundred votes as here, to ask for a recount Micawberishly looking for numerical good fortune or windfall of chance discovery of illegal rejection or reception of ballots. This may tend to a dangerous disorientation which invades the democratic order by injecting widespread scope for reopening of declared returns, unless the Court restricts recourse to recount to cases of genuine apprehension of miscount or illegality or other compulsions of justice necessitating such a drastic step." 7. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid settled principles of law, we have examined the pleadings appearing at paragraph nos.7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the election petition. To have a proper appreciation of the same, we find it apt to reproduce the same: "7. That, during the course of election, counting and re-counting and after the election was over, the petitioner noticed large scale irregularities in counting of votes and casting of votes in different booths in favour of the opposite party no.1 to ensure his win, the details of which are stated hereunder. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 9. That, during the course of counting / re-counting 3 (three) ballot papers in booth no.7, though indicated casting of votes in favour of the petitioner were rejected on the ground that likewise, 2(two) votes in booth no.3 and one vote in booth no.8, though were cast in favour of the petitioner, were rejected on the ground that the respective voters have put their thumb impression instead of putting the seal. Furthermore, though 1 (one) vote each in booth no.8 and 11, though were cast in favour of the petitioner, the same were rejected on the ground that the voter had also put his seal in respect of another symbol for which no candidate is contesting. The rejected votes have also not been property scrutinized. 10. Furthermore, though 1 (one) vote each in booth no.8 and 11, though were cast in favour of the petitioner, the same were rejected on the ground that the voter had also put his seal in respect of another symbol for which no candidate is contesting. The rejected votes have also not been property scrutinized. 10. That, apart from the above irregularities, the petitioner has noticed that large number of voters who have cast votes in favour of the opposite party no.1, have exercised their franchise in two different booths of same village Bishnupur under Salaria Grama Panchayat, the details of whom are furnished hereunder: 11. That, one Nirupama Jena, D/o Basudeva Jena of village Bramhanikala has cast her vote in favour of opposite party no.1 i.e. "Open Book" in booth no.2. Said Nirupama Jena has also cast her vote as Rita Jena, W/o of Nirakar Jena of village Dhaipokhari in ward no.2 (booth No.2) of Habeleswara G.P.. It is humbly submitted that Smt. Nirupama Jena and Smt. Rita Jena are one and same person. Sl. No. Name Sl. No. in Booth No.7 Sl. No. in Booth No.6 House No. 1. Prasanta Kumar Behera, S/O Judhistira Behera 196 209 13 2. Manasi Behera, W/o Deepak Behera 197 210 13 3. Chandana Behera, W/o Purusottam Behera 199 211 13 4. Purusottam Behera, S/o Krushna Behera 200 212 13 5. Shantilata Behera, W/o Judhistira Behera 201 213 13 6. Akhaji Saha, W/o Sagara Saha 203 217 29 7. Jula Saha, W/o Sadhu Saha 204 218 29 8. Babuli Kumar Saha, S/o Sagar Saha 205 219 29 9. Sudhansu Sekhar Sethi, S/o Ballabha Sethi 352 223 22 10. Biswaranjan Patra, S/o Babaji Patra 377 224 15 12. That, two voters of village Brahmanikela namely, Pitei Jena, W/o Ananta Jena and Ananda Jena, S/o Madhu Jena have cast their vote in favour of the opposite party no.1 in booth no.2 and they have again cast their vote in villagePadakana, ward no.12, booth no.12 of Padanapada G.P. in the district of Bhrdrak. One Smt. Anita Sethi, W/o Anirudha Sethi, whose name finds place in the voters list at serial no.62, house no.12 of ward no.10 of village Balabhadrapur has cast her vote in favour of the opposite party no.1 and she has also cast her vote in favour of another candidate in Rajendrapur G.P., Village- Saro, Ward No.11, in the district of Bhadrak. 13. 13. That, one Rabindra Sethi, S/o Dhoi Sethi and another Kanchan Sethi, W/o Rabindra Sethi have cast their vote in favour of the opposite party no.1 in booth number 10 having house no.21 and serial no.119 and 117 respectively. They have also cast their votes in Bhagabanpur G.P., Ward No.7, Sl. No.338, House No.59, S.L. No.339, House No.59 in district- Bhadrak respectively." 8. It is seen that paragraph 7 of the election petition does not disclose any specific case of irregularity. Paragraph 9 speaks about rejection of votes because the voters put their thumb impression instead of putting the seal and though one vote each in booth nos.8 and 11, were cast in favour of the election petitioner, the same were rejected on the ground that the voter had also put his seal in respect of another symbol for which no candidate is contesting. So far as this paragraph is concerned, there is no need to re-count of the ballot papers. It is well settled principles of law that ballot papers have to be stamped with the seal and not with the thump impression as s result of which the thump impression given in one ballot paper has to be discarded. Then, coming to the paragraph 10, it is seen that the election petitioner has enumerated the names of ten persons who have cast their votes in two different booths i.e. booth nos.6 and 7. This aspect cannot be determined by re-counting the ballot papers. This aspect can only be proved by leading evidence. 9. Coming to the paragraph 11 of the election petition, it is alleged by the election petitioner that one Nirupama Jena has cast her vote twice describing herself as Nirupama Jena, D/o Basudeva Jena of village Bramhanikala and as Rita Jena, W/o Nirakar Jena. This aspect could also not be determined by re-counting the ballot papers. This aspect has to be considered by leading evidence. 10. In paragraph 12 of the election petition, it was pleaded by the election petitioner that two voters of village Brahmanikela, namely, Pitel Jena, W/o Ananta Jena and Ananda Jena, S/o Madhu Jena have cast their votes in favour of the opposite party no.1 in booth no.2 and they have again cast their votes in village Padakana, ward no.12, booth no.12 of Padanapada G.P. in the district of Bhadrak. This aspect could also not be considered and determined by the election tribunal by re-counting of the ballot papers. All these pleadings can be established by leading cogent evidence to establish the facts. 11. So, we are of the opinion that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandapur has erred in allowing the re-counting of the ballot papers holding that the question to be determined is who has got more votes? He has also taken into consideration of the paragraph 15 of the election petition, which does not show any specific pleading regarding any corrupt practice. 12. In course of argument, Dr. A. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 submits that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandapur taking into consideration of the fact that at the time of polling in booth no.7, though 351 number of ballot papers were used, but at the time of recounting on 23.02.2017, 348 number of ballot papers were found from the ballot box, which itself shows that there is some irregularities. However, this plea has never been raised in the election petition and that can only be asked for a recount Micawberishly looking for numerical good fortune or windfall of chance discovery of illegal rejection or reception of ballots, as observed in the case of Chanda Singh (supra). 13. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow this W.A. Accordingly, the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6886 of 2018 and the order dated 18.04.018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandapur in Election Misc. Case No.1 of 2017 are set aside. 14. The W.A. is disposed of, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.