JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sumit Daga learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the successful candidate challenging the order passed by the Election Tribunal/SDM Handia, Prayagraj dated 12.1.2022 whereby the said authority hs directed for recount of the votes cast for the election on the post of Gram Pradhan Bhagautipur, Handia, Prayagraj. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said order is contrary to law inasmuch as no finding has been recorded on any of the issues framed in the election petition. Specifically no finding has been recorded with respect to issue Nos. 6 and 7 framed in that petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Mustafa Vs. Up Ziladhikari, Phoolpur, Azamgarh and others, 2007(6) AWC 5536. 4. On the other hand, besides the issue on merit, Sri Sumit Daga learned counsel for respondent No.4-election petitioner has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable. He would submit, by the order dated 12.1.2022 the election petition has been partly allowed. The Election Tribunal has returned findings against the petitioner with respect to issue Nos. 1 to 9 framed therein. 5. Therefore, the only remedy that may be available against the said order is stated to be a civil revision. In that regard reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Athar Hussain Vs. Razda Begum and others, 2017(1) 35 RD 128 and another learned Single Judge decision in the case of Kalektar Vs. Anil Kumar and Others, Misc. Single No. 2187 of 2018 decided on 16.2.2018. Thus, it has been submitted that the Division Bench decision in the case of Mohd. Mustafa (Supra) has been distinguished on facts. Same distinction applies in the present case. 6. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, there is no quarrel between the parties that if a final adjudication has taken place in an election petition and order of recount has been passed therein, the remedy available to the person aggrieved may be to file a civil revision. Same distinction applies in the present case. 6. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, there is no quarrel between the parties that if a final adjudication has taken place in an election petition and order of recount has been passed therein, the remedy available to the person aggrieved may be to file a civil revision. If however, no final order has been passed and the election petition is thus pending, an order of recount passed during such pendency may remain an interlocutory order which may be subjected to challenge in a writ jurisdiction. 7. That being the undisputed principle to be applied, we may examine the contents of the order dated 12.1.2022. In that the Tribunal has taken note of nine issues framed by it being: ^^01- D;k ;kph }kjk 30 iz0 iapk;r jkt ,DV fu;ekoyh 1994 dh /kkjk 03¼1½ ds vuqlkj 50 :Œ dh izfrHkwfr /kujkf'k xzke iapk;r ds xzke fuf/k [kkrs esa tek fd;k x;k gS\ 02- D;k pquko ;kfpdk vkns'k 07 fu;e 11 tkŒnh ls ckf/kr gS\ 03- D;k pquko ;kfpdk /kkjk 80¼30½ tkŒnh ls ckf/kr gS\ 04- D;k pquko ;kfpdk esa mŒizŒ ljdkj dks i{k eqdnek cuk;k x;k gSA ;fn ugha rks mldk izHkko 05- D;k pquko ;kfpdk iks”k.kh; gS\ 06- D;k xzke iapk;r dh erx.kuk fof/kd funsZ'kksa ,oa ikjnf'kZrk ds lkFk ugha dh x;h gS\ 07- D;k ;kph ds oS/k erksa dksa voS/k ,oa izfri{kh la[;k 1 ds voS/k erksa dks oS/k djds pquko ifj.kke izHkkfor fd;k x;k gS\ 08- D;k ernku esa iMs+a eriRrksa dh dqy la[;k esa vUrj gS ;fn gka rks mldk izHkko\ 09- D;k ;kph vU; mile ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\^^ 8. Thereafter the Tribunal has made a brief reference of the proceedings conducted by it and the case set up by the petitioner. Thereafter, it has recorded following findings: ^^mijksDr foospuk ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ds fof/kd foospu ds mijkUr ckn fcUnq la[;k 1 yxk;r 9 dks fuLrkfjr djrs gq;s esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqprk gw¡ fd ;kfpdk dks Lohdkj dj iqu% erx.kuk ds djk;s tkus dk i;kZIr vk/kkj gSA^^ 9. Having done that, the Tribunal has then made operative order. Thereafter, it has recorded following findings: ^^mijksDr foospuk ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ds fof/kd foospu ds mijkUr ckn fcUnq la[;k 1 yxk;r 9 dks fuLrkfjr djrs gq;s esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqprk gw¡ fd ;kfpdk dks Lohdkj dj iqu% erx.kuk ds djk;s tkus dk i;kZIr vk/kkj gSA^^ 9. Having done that, the Tribunal has then made operative order. Therein it has been observed as under: ^^vr% vkns'k gqvk fd f=Lrjh; iapk;r fuokZpu 2021 ds vUrxZr fodkl [k.M /kuwiqj dh xzke iapk;r HkxkSrhiqj ds xzke iz/kku ¼iz/kkuin½ ds fupkZpu ifj.kke 02-05-2021 ¼izi= 46½ ds fo#) izLrqr pquko ;kfpdk Lohdkj djrs gq;s iqu% erx.kuk djk;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA----- ,slh n'kk esa xzke iapk;r HkxkSrhiqj ds xzke iz/kku in ds fuokZpu dh iqu% erx.kuk dk;Z gsrq frfFk dk fu/kkZj.k fnukad 12-03-2022 ds mijkUr fd;k tk;sxkA i=koyh fnukad 22-03-2022 dks is'k gksA^^ 10. For the purpose of testing whether the present petition is maintainable, the merits of the findings recorded are not to be seen, at this stage. It is the nature of the order that has to be considered and determined. 11. Looked in that light, the Tribunal has recorded a conclusion that the election petition deserved to be allowed and a recount of votes has to be done. Cryptic as may it appear, the findings exist. Thereafter, the Tribunal has passed an order observing that the election petition is accepted. Consequently, it has provided for recount of votes. 12. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the Election Tribunal has not dealt with the issues or has not decided the election petition. 13. In Athar Hussain (Supra) the learned Single Judge has made reference to the finding recorded in that case. Relevant to our discussion, paragraph-6 and 7 of that decision read as below: "6. In the instant case, the Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) had framed as many as 12 issues for adjudication in the election petition. By the order dated 19th January, 2017 he proceeded to decide all the 12 issues in favour of the election petitioner as would be apparent from the second last paragraph of the order dated 19th January, 2017. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority proceeded to order as follows: 'Uprokt wad binduon ki vivechna evam nistaran ke uprant mai is niskarsh par pahunchti hun ki yachi ki yachika anshik rup se swikar ki jane yogya hai'. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority proceeded to order as follows: 'Uprokt wad binduon ki vivechna evam nistaran ke uprant mai is niskarsh par pahunchti hun ki yachi ki yachika anshik rup se swikar ki jane yogya hai'. In the operative portion, the Prescribed Authority directed as follows 'Astu yachi ki yachika anshik rup se swikar ki jati hai. Sahayak Nirvachan Adhikar (Panchasthani), Amroha ko nirdesit kiya jata hai ki wah dinank 04.02.2017 ko gram pachayat Sinaura Jalalabad, Nyay Panchayat Patei Khalsa, Vikas Khand Joya tehsil, Amroha ke sealed mat patra, maton ki punargadna hetu adhohastachhri ke nyayalaya me pratah 10.00 beje prastut kere tatha is hetu samuchit matgadna staff ki tainati bhi sunischit kere. Prabhari Nirikshak, Kotwali Amroha Nagar ko ukt dinank ko kanun evam shanti vyawastha banaye rakhne hetu samuchit police bal ki tainati hetu patra bhi presit kiya jaye. Aadesh ki prati krinyawayan hetu sahayak jila nirvachan adhikar (Panchasthani), Amroha tatha prabhai nirikshak, Kotwali Amroha Nagar ko bheji jae'. 7. From the aforesaid portion of the order it is clear that the Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) had decided all the issues arising in the election petition, after considering all the evidence led by the parties, in favour of the election petitioner and has partly allowed the election petition. Under the circumstances, it could not be said that the order dated 19th January, 2017 was an interlocutory order. Once the Election Tribunal decides all the issues and declares election petition as partly allowed and as a consequence thereof directs for recount, the order of recount does not remain an interlocutory order and, therefore is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds that in the facts of the case, the order of the Election Tribunal was not an interlocutory order therefore revision against the same is maintainable. Accordingly, there is no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. However, considering that election petition and the revision emanating therefrom must be decided with utmost expedition, this petition is disposed of with an observation that the learned District Judge, Amroha will proceed with the revision expeditiously and would endeavour to decide the same, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing certified copy of this order." 14. In view of the exact similarity noted above in the facts of the case and that Athar Hussain (supra), I also find myself in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in that case. Accordingly, the order impugned cannot be described as an interlocutory order. Consequently the petitioner has a right of revision against the said order. In face of that statutory remedy available, interference claimed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined. At the same time, in the event the petitioner files a proper revision application within a period of two weeks from today alongwith a copy of this order, the same shall be entertained on merits and without raising objection as to limitation. 15. This observation has been made keeping in mind the circumstance arising from the spread of the third wave of the pandemic COVID-19. 16. It is further provided that for a period of two weeks, the direction for recount of votes shall be kept in abeyance and further action in that regard be taken upon appropriate orders being passed in the revision proceedings. The parties undertakes not to seek any adjournment in the revision proceedings. 17. With the above observations, present writ petition stands disposed of.