JUDGMENT : This intra court appeal by the writ petitioner seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated 17.07.2023 whereby his W.P.No.21679/2022 (LB-ELE) came to be dismissed. The appellant in the said petition had called in question the judgment of the learned Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Gubbi entered in Election Petition No.1/2021 which related to election to the Grama Panchayat. The said Election Petition was allowed and election was set at naught. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter being in complete agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge who at para 6 of the impugned order has observed as under: "Having regard to the factual findings that have been received by this Court in terms of the directions earlier issued, this Court is of the considered opinion that although there is slight change in the numbers, nevertheless, the petitioner who had earlier declared to have secured 296 votes has in fact secured 300 votes and the second respondent who had filed the Election petition has received 295 votes. The main grievance of the second respondent was that the counting was not held properly. Now that the recounting was held in the presence of the parties as per the directions issued by this Court, there can be no further grievance left with the second respondent. Regarding invalid votes, it is clarified that at no stage it was declared that there were any invalid votes. It now appears that four votes were wrongly counted in favour of three other candidates." 3. The vehement submission of learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellant that even the recounting of the votes polled was defectively done and that would constitute an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore learned Single Judge is not justified in denying relief to his client, is bit difficult to countenance. The recounting exercise was participated by all the stake holders including the appellant herein who had not raised even a little finger as to arguable infirmity now vociferously canvassed before us. Had he pointed out any defect, the Election Tribunal itself would have addressed the same in accordance with law. 4. We also do not agree with the submission of learned Sr. Had he pointed out any defect, the Election Tribunal itself would have addressed the same in accordance with law. 4. We also do not agree with the submission of learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellant that the provisions of CPC 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are strictly applicable to the proceedings in the Election Petition. The Apex Court in JYOTHI BASU vs. DEBI GHOSAL, 1982 (1) SCC 691 has discussed about the peculiarity of Election Petitions under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The said decision has been reiterated by the Apex Court in SENTHILBALAJI.V. vs. A.P.GEETHA, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 679. At paragraph 8 in JYOTHI BASU it is observed as under: "A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a Common Law Right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An Election petition is not an action at Common Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the Common Law nor the principles of Equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statutory creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged policy because policy in such matters as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in a straight jacket. Thus the entire election process commencing from the issuance of the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member or members right up to the final resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the election is regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, different stages of the process being dealt with by different provisions of the Act. Thus the entire election process commencing from the issuance of the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member or members right up to the final resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the election is regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, different stages of the process being dealt with by different provisions of the Act. There can be no election to Parliament or the State Legislature except as provided by the Representation of the People Act 1951 and again, no such election may be questioned except in the manner provided by the Representation of the People Act. So the Representation of the People Act has been held to be a complete and self contained code within which must be found any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute. We are concerned with an election dispute. The question is who are parties to an election dispute and who may be impleaded as parties to an election petition. We have already referred to the Scheme of the Act. We have noticed the necessity to rid ourselves of notions based on Common Law or Equity. We see that we must seek an answer to the question within the four corners of the statute. What does the Act say?" 5. What is observed above, equally applies to the Election Petitions that are tried under the provisions of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and the Rules promulgated thereunder. Section17(7) of the Act reads as under: "Subject to the provisions of this Act every election petition shall be tired by the (the Designated Court), as nearly as may be in accordance with procedure applicable under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908), to the trial of suits: Provided that the (the Designated Court), shall have discretion to refuse for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine any witness or witnesses if he is of the opinion that their evidence is not material for the decision of petition or that the party tendering such witness or witnesses is doing so on frivolous grounds or with a view to delay the proceedings." The provisions of CPC and the Evidence Act are made applicable, is true; however, the application is not stricto sensu. That being the position, the arguments structured on the principles of ex parte placement of a party to the Election Petition, do not much come to the aid of appellant, more particularly, when a just result has been brought about by accomplishing the task of recounting of votes with the participation of all concerned, that too sans any objection whatsoever. In the above circumstances, the writ appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.