JUDGMENT : [Manish Kumar, J.] 1. Heard Shri A.Z. Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Vikrant Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. Present petition has been preferred to quash the impugned orders dated 4.7.2022 and 12.1.2022. It has further been sought to direct the Election Tribunal to first decide the preliminary issue before the further proceedings in the Election Petition and direct the Prescribed Authority to get the aforesaid original ballot paper be investigated by the Police after registering the FIR at the concerned Police Station. 3. The brief facts of the present case as per the petitioner are that the petitioner was declared elected as Gram Pradhan of Village Atwa, Kshetra Panchayat Kothwan, Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi by the Election authorities on 3.5.2021. Later, some persons who were not elected had preferred an application under Section 12 C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (henceforth be referred as, the Act, 1947) challenging the election of the petitioner. In the said proceedings, the notice was issued to the petitioner and in reply thereto, a written statement was submitted denying the facts narrated in the application preferred under Section 12 C of the Act, 1947. 4. The petitioner had moved applications for framing of issues in pursuance of which issues were framed pertaining questions of facts and law both. 5. The application of the petitioner to decide the issues of law first, as per Order XIV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred as, the Code, 1908), was rejected by the prescribed authority vide its order dated 4.7.2022 and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Order XIV Rule 1 (4) which provides that issues are of two kinds, which are mentioned as follows : (a) issue of fact, (b) issues of law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on Order XIV Rule 2 (2) of the Code, 1908 where the Court has been mandated to decide the issue of law first. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on Order XIV Rule 2 (2) of the Code, 1908 where the Court has been mandated to decide the issue of law first. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the proceedings pending before the prescribed authority is covered by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, the Rule, 1994) framed under Section 110, read with Section 12 C and Section 12 D of the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It is further submitted that as per Section 12 C (5), proceedings before the prescribed authority under Section 12 C of the Act, 1947 was for questioning the election and are summary in nature and thus, the submissions raised for deciding the issues of law first, is not acceptable as per Order XIV 2 (2) of Code, 1908. 9. It is further submitted that evidence is going on and the petitioner is trying to linger the proceedings by moving applications time and again. 10. Shri Vikrant Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the petitioner is moving several applications time and again just to linger the proceedings. It is further submitted that earlier also, a petition bearing Writ C No. 2665 of 2022 was preferred by the wife of the petitioner, who had also contested the election and got only 10 votes, which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 11.5.2022 giving liberty to the petitioner of that petition to submit her reply/objection in the suit. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, the position which emerges out is that the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prescribed authority has to decide the issues of law first is not tenable. As per the petitioner, the issue of law is as under as pointed out from the Annexure 7 to the present petition : ^^D;k izLrqr ;kfpdk esa vkns’k 6 fu;e 15¼4½ O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k gS] ;fn gka rks izHkko\ 12. As per the petitioner, the issue of law is as under as pointed out from the Annexure 7 to the present petition : ^^D;k izLrqr ;kfpdk esa vkns’k 6 fu;e 15¼4½ O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k gS] ;fn gka rks izHkko\ 12. Order XIV 2 (2) provides that if the issues of law as well as fact arise in a suit only the issues of law relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force is to be decided first. For convenience, the Order XIV 2 (2) of the Code, 1908 is quoted hereinbelow : (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. 13. Undisputedly, the petitioner has failed to show the issue of law as framed on the application of the petitioner (annexed at Annexure 7 to the present petition) is covered by any of the conditions contained in Order XIV Rule 2 (2). The issue of law framed on Order VI Rule 15 (4), the Order VI deals with pleadings generally and Rule 15 (4) of Order VI is with regard to the person verifying the pleadings shall also furnish an affidavit in respect of pleadings. The issue of law as mentioned in the application of the petitioner did not contain issues relating to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and hence, the contentions raised to direct the prescribed authority to decide the issue of law first is not tenable in law. 14. The proceedings, as per Section 12 C (5) are summary in nature and the evidence is going on. 15. 14. The proceedings, as per Section 12 C (5) are summary in nature and the evidence is going on. 15. For the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with the proceedings which are going on before the prescribed authority. 16. Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed, accordingly.