JUDGMENT : R. DEVDAS J. This intra-Court writ appeal is filed, seeking to assail the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.200061/2021 dated 26.07.2021 and to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 30.12.2020 and 05.01.2021 at Annexures-C and E, annexed to the writ petition. 2. The appellant herein was a candidate who contested the elections to ward No.6 of Degalmadi Gram Panchayat. The votes were counted by respondent No.3 on 30.12.2020 and it was found that both the petitioner and respondent No.5 herein had secured 349 votes each. Respondent No.3 exercised his powers under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 (herein after referred to as ‘Rules 1993’, for short) and declared respondent No.5 as the returned candidate. The appellant herein had submitted a representation in writing seeking for a recount of the votes on the ground that the same was not counted properly. Respondent No.3, who received the representation at 6.55 p.m. on 30.12.2020, according to the appellant, did not consider the same, but declared respondent No.5 as returned candidate. 3. Earlier, the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was allowed by order dated 02.02.2021 while directing the respondent No.3-returning officer to recount the votes within a period of four days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. However, respondent No.5 herein preferred intra-Court appeal in W.A.No.200039/2021, which was clubbed with Contempt Petition No.200050/2021 filed at the hands of the appellant herein. A co-ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 29.03.2021, held that the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 02.02.2021 directing recounting of the votes was without hearing respondent No.5, who was declared as returned candidate. On that short ground, appeal was allowed and the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge was interfered with on the limited ground that the order could not have been passed without hearing the returned candidate. The writ petition was restored and the parties were directed to appear before the learned Single Judge, while the learned Single Judge was requested to hear the matter afresh. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge heard all the parties and passed the impugned order dated 26.07.2021, dismissing the writ petition filed at the hands of the appellant herein. 4. The writ petition was restored and the parties were directed to appear before the learned Single Judge, while the learned Single Judge was requested to hear the matter afresh. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge heard all the parties and passed the impugned order dated 26.07.2021, dismissing the writ petition filed at the hands of the appellant herein. 4. The ground on which the writ petition is dismissed is that on perusal of the representation given by the appellant herein, it was clear that there was no ground made out as prescribed under Rule 71(2) of the Rules, 1993 except for an omnibus statement that the votes were not counted properly. The learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner had to plead specific grounds for seeking recounting of the votes as her election agent would be privy to all the proceedings before the Returning Officer. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner cannot claim that she would explain the reasons before the Returning Officer, as Rule 71 mandated the Returning Officer to apply his mind before accepting the reasons seeking recounting of the votes. Further, it was held that though the Court had recorded an initial finding that the petitioner’s representation had to be mandatorily considered by the Returning Officer, but yet, that would result in an empty formality as the petitioner had not made out any ground to recount the votes. The learned Single Judge therefore dismissed the writ petition holding that it would be a wasteful exercise to direct the Returning Officer to consider the representations given by the writ petitioner. 5. This matter had come up for admission last week and this Court had posed a question to the learned counsel for the appellant as to how the writ petition was maintainable, since the process of election and declaration of results could only be challenged by a duly constituted election petition as provided under Section 15 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short). We had further pointed out to Section 19 of the Act which provided grounds for declaration of election to be void. We had further pointed out to Section 19 of the Act which provided grounds for declaration of election to be void. One of the grounds being that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of any Rules or orders made thereunder, as provided under Section 19 (1) (d) (iii) and (iv) of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant has once again reiterated the very same submission as was made before the learned Single Judge that the appellant is not challenging or seeking a declaration of the election to be void and on the other hand it is a simple representation seeking a direction to the Returning Officer to recount the votes. 6. In our considered opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is required to be rejected on the ground that writs cannot be issued in futility. The purpose behind which the appellant is seeking recounting of the votes is that there has been some discrepancy and if recounted, the result would be different and consequently on recounting if it is found that the appellant has secured more votes than the returned candidate, it would enable her to seek a declaration that the results declared by the Returning Officer is void and perhaps to declare the appellant as the returned candidate. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the prayer made in the writ petition, the appellant herein is only seeking for a recount and nothing else, it is necessary to reject such submission as a submission in futility. The law is well settled in this regard that this Court exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not issue writs in futility. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that it would be an empty formality if the Returning Officer is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. 7. In this regard, it is also necessary to observe that the rigours of the provisions contained in Order II Rule 2 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 get attracted in such cases. 7. In this regard, it is also necessary to observe that the rigours of the provisions contained in Order II Rule 2 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 get attracted in such cases. Clause(1) of Rule 2 requires that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action. Clause (2) of Rule 2 mandates that where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. One of the reasons behind these provisions is that there should be prevention of endless litigation, wastage of Court’s precious time and abuse of legal procedure by litigants. Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium, i.e., it is in the interest of the society that litigation comes to an end. Therefore, if a plaint attracts Section 12 of CPC, it is automatically not maintainable. 8. It is undisputed fact that the results of the elections were declared on 30.12.2020 and if the appellant herein was aggrieved by the declaration of the results, even on the ground that her representation seeking recounting of the votes was not considered by the Returning Officer or that the Returning Officer had not followed the provisions of the Act or the Rules or orders made thereunder, the appellant was required to file a duly constituted election petition within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election, in terms of Section 15 of the Act. The appellant having failed to file an election petition within the prescribed period, would be precluded from filing an election petition beyond the prescribed period. Therefore, even if a direction was issued to the Returning Officer to recount the votes, and on recounting, a different result would emerge showing the appellant had received more votes than any other candidate, it would not enure to the benefit of the appellant as she cannot seek a declaration that the election is void. 9. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that this writ appeal is bereft of any merit. Consequently, we proceed to dismiss the appeal accordingly.