ORDER With consent heard finally. 1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner taking exception to the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Lahar, District Bhind, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the petitioner as respondent/returned candidate in election petition, which is being preferred by the respondent No.2 has been rejected. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 participated in the election for the post of Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat Sikri Jagir, Tahsil Lahar, District Bhind. In the said election, respondent No.2 obtained 407 votes whereas petitioner obtained 425 votes. Consequently petitioner declared as elected/returned candidate by Annexure P/2. Thereafter, election petition under Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1993') was filed at the instance of respondent No.2 with certain allegations in respect of improper conduct of counting process. 3. Notice was issued on 10.08.2022 and petitioner appeared before the Court of SDO, Lahar, Bhind. He moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the election petition as according to him, election petition was not duly supported by the affidavit. Sub-Divisional Officer heard the rival contentions and dismissed the application so preferred. Therefore, this petition has been filed. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the election petition in respect of Panchayat is being governed by the M.P. Panchayat (Nirwachan) Niyam, 1995 (hereinafter referred as 'Nirwachan Niyam, 1995') and the M.P. Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification of Membership), Rules 1995 (hereinafter referred as 'Election Petitions' Rules 1995'). As per Rule 5 of the Election Petitions Rules 1995, contents of petition shall incorporate the signature of the petitioner and verification of the contents of statements of all material facts and particulars would be in manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings. Counsel referred the Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC and submitted that verification of pleadings has to be in accordance with the Clause 4 of said Sub-Rule 15 where it has been prescribed that person verifying the pleadings shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings. Counsel referred the Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC and submitted that verification of pleadings has to be in accordance with the Clause 4 of said Sub-Rule 15 where it has been prescribed that person verifying the pleadings shall also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings. Here, in the present case, affidavit has been filed but it has been sworn before the Oath's Commissioner and not before the Judicial Magistrate First Class or Notary. Oath's Commissioner is not the appropriate authority before whom election petitioner could have sworn the affidavit because of the effect of Rule 5 of the Commissioner of Oath's Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred as 'Oath's Rules, 1976'). 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Rule 5, the Commissioner of Oaths shall have power to verify affidavits to be used in Courts by administering oaths and affirmations. While referring the Rule 2 (b) where definition of 'Court' has been defined, learned counsel stressed over the point that 'Court' means only civil court under superintendence of the High Court. Here, Court of SDO is not a civil court as per the definition given in the Oath's Rules, 1976, therefore, affidavit sworn before Oath's Commissioner cannot be treated to be an affidavit for the purpose of election petition. This was the compliance which is mandatory in nature and therefore, any omission or deficiency renders the case vulnerable. 6. For creating a distinction between the civil courts and revenue courts, learned counsel for the petitioner referred Sections 3 and 5 of the CPC and submits that for the purpose of CPC, district courts is sub-ordinate to the High Courts and as per Section 5, revenue courts cannot act as civil courts because they are different than civil courts. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner tracked the law developed in this regard right from the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Vs. Roop Singh Rathore and others reported in AIR 1964 SCC 1545 and submits that concept of affidavit in election petition falling under Representation of the People Act, 1951 was considered (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1951'). Defect in affidavit was found to be curable defect. He further referred para 5 (page 844) of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of M. Kamalam Vs. Dr. Defect in affidavit was found to be curable defect. He further referred para 5 (page 844) of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of M. Kamalam Vs. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed reported in 1978 2 SCC 659 , wherein Apex Court has held that affidavit is an integral part of the election petition. Thereafter, counsel referred the para 28 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of F.A. Sapa and others Vs. Singora and others reported in 1991 3 SCC 375 to bring home the legal position that inclusion of affidavit as integral part and its strict compliance.