ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur, by which the election petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 324/34 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo for one year imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- vide judgment dated 02.07.2013 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Sawai Madhopur. Counsel submits that the respondent No.1 assailed the aforesaid judgment by way of filing appeal before the Court of Session Judge, Sawai Madhopur and his conviction for the above offences was upheld, but he was granted benefit of probation vide judgment dated 07.09.2018. Counsel submits that concealing these material facts, the respondent No.1 submitted nomination form for contesting election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhagwatgarh Panchayat Samiti-Chouth Ka Barwada, Sawai Madhopur and suppressed the relevant information of his conviction in a criminal case. Counsel submits that the respondent No.1 is having disqualification under Section 19(g) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act of 1994 (for short, “the Act of 1994”), therefore, he was not qualified to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch. Counsel submits that as per the proviso (ii) attached to Section 19 of the Act of 1994, the respondent No.1 was disqualified to contest the election for six years from the date of his conviction. Counsel submits that on the basis of the above averments, an election petition was submitted by the petitioner against the respondents, challenging the election of the respondent No.1 before the Court of District Judge Sawai Madhopur, thereafter, the election petition was transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur wherein on the basis of pleadings in all nine issues were framed, out of which two preliminary issues were to be decided initially with the consent of the parties and an application was submitted by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for summoning the original nomination form from the office of District Election Officer. Counsel submits that the said application, filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 09.11.2021 and the original election nomination form of the respondent No.1 was summoned from the office of the District Election Officer. Counsel submits that the said application, filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 09.11.2021 and the original election nomination form of the respondent No.1 was summoned from the office of the District Election Officer. Counsel submits that thereafter the case was posted for arguments on the preliminary issues and accordingly, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, final arguments were heard on preliminary issue Nos. 1 and 2 and both the issues were decided against the petitioner and thereafter, the entire election petition of the petitioner was rejected by the Election Tribunal by recording a finding in para No.17 that both the parties have failed to produce any evidence, in support of the other remaining issues Nos.3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Counsel submits that the Tribunal was of the view that all these issues were mixed questions of fact and law and since parties failed to produce any evidence in support of the above issues, therefore, the election petition is liable to be rejected. Counsel submits that no consent was given by the petitioner at the time of making arguments on the preliminary issues that no other evidence would be produced by him for the rest of the issues. Counsel submits that the consent was given by the petitioner for non production of documents or evidence confined to the decision of issue Nos.1 and 2 only. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law and the matter is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the rest of the issues, i.e., issue Nos.3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, after taking evidence of both sides. 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on the basis of the consent given by both the sides, the preliminary issues Nos.1 and 2 were decided, after hearing the arguments of both sides. Counsel submits that since the preliminary issue Nos.1 and 2 were legal issues and the petitioner has failed to prove the disqualification of the respondent, i.e., conviction which was more than six years ago, hence the respondent No.1 was not disqualified to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch. Counsel submits that since the preliminary issue Nos.1 and 2 were legal issues and the petitioner has failed to prove the disqualification of the respondent, i.e., conviction which was more than six years ago, hence the respondent No.1 was not disqualified to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch. Counsel submits that once the legal issue and the main issue were decided against the petitioner, no other issues were required to be decided by this Court. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of A Kanthamani Vs. Nasreen Admed reported in (2017) 4 SCC 654 . Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Tribunal has passed a just and cogent judgment which needs no interference of this Court. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and peruse the material available on the record. 4. This fact is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 332 and 324/34 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo one year’s imprisonment with fine by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I Sawai Madhopur vide judgment dated 02.07.2013. This facts is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 assailed the aforesaid order by way of filing an appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur and the said appeal was partly allowed and his conviction was upheld, but he was granted benefit of probation vide judgment dated 07.09.2018. Thereafter, he contested the election for the post of Sarpanch from Gram Panchayat Bhagwatgarh, Tehsil Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur. The petitioner assailed the election petition on two counts:- i) That the respondent No.1 is having disqualification on the basis of his conviction and sentence of one year in the criminal case. ii) That the respondent No.1 has suppressed the above material information regarding his conviction and sentence at the time of submitting his nomination form before the District Election Officer. 5. The respondent No.1 submitted a detailed reply to the election petition and denied the averments made in the election petition with certain specific pleas and it was stated therein that the disqualification period of six years expired prior to filing of nomination form. 6. 5. The respondent No.1 submitted a detailed reply to the election petition and denied the averments made in the election petition with certain specific pleas and it was stated therein that the disqualification period of six years expired prior to filing of nomination form. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties as many as nine issues were framed by the Election Tribunal and with the consent of the parties, two preliminary issues were ordered to be decided at initial stage and at the relevant time both parties gave their consent for deciding these issues on the basis of the material available on the record and accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to decide only two preliminary issues and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Tribunal decided issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the respondent No.1 and against the petitioner vide judgment dated 01.04.2022 and recorded a finding of fact that the term of six years would be counted from the date of judgment passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, when initially the petitioner was found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 324/34 and 332 IPC. 7. At the time of passing the impugned judgment, the Election Tribunal held that the other issues, i.e., issue Nos.3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are mixed questions of fact and of law and since both the parties have not produced any evidence in support of these issues, hence, these issues could not be decided on merits and the election petition was dismissed on the basis of the preliminary issues only. 8. Now, the question which remains for consideration before this Court is “whether the election petition can be rejected by the Election Tribunal without deciding the other issues, i.e., issue Nos.3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9”. The main issue, i.e., issue No.3 was framed by the Election Tribunal that “whether the respondent No.1 has contested the election by suppressing the material fact regarding his conviction in a criminal case and whether such act amounts to a disqualification enumerated under Section 19 of the Act of 1994”. The aforesaid issue and the other issues remained undecided for want of evidence to be led by both the sides. The aforesaid issue and the other issues remained undecided for want of evidence to be led by both the sides. It is relevant to mention here that an application was submitted by the petitioner for summoning of the original nomination form of the respondent No.1, and the said application was allowed by the Election Tribunal and the original nomination form was summoned from the office of District Election Officer. But prior to receiving of the original nomination form the matter has been decided and the election petition has been rejected. This Court summoned the original record from the Tribunal and the perusal of the record and the order indicates that at no point of time, the petitioner gave his consent for not producing any evidence with regard to other issues, i.e., issue Nos.3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 and the learned Election Tribunal has recorded a finding at its own without any basis that all the remaining issues are mixed questions of fact and law and both the parties have failed to produce any evidence in support of these issues and accordingly, the issue No.3 and other issues remained undecided for want of evidence of both sides. 9. Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC stipulates that when issues of both law and facts arise in the same suit, the Court may dispose the suit by trying the issue of law first. For this purpose, the provision specifies the question of law which are (I) jurisdiction of the Court and (II) a Bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. The provision is extracted below:- “XIV (2). Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.—(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. The provision is extracted below:- “XIV (2). Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.—(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (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 the 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.]” 10. After amendments of the provisions contained under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC in the year 1976, a duty has been casted upon the Courts by the Legislature that the Court must proceed to hear all the issues and pronounce the judgment on the same, except that the Court may try an issue relating to jurisdiction or to the legal Bar to the suit as a preliminary issue. The words ‘it may try’ are clearly indicating of the fact that discretion is given to the Court and the duty is casted upon the Court to decide the suit on preliminary issues only. 11. The First Schedule appended to the CPC contains the procedure to be applied in respect of matters coming for adjudication before the Civil Courts. Such is handmaid of justice as laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra(Dead) by LRs Vs. Pramod Gupta(Dead) by LRs & Anr. reported in 2003 (3) SCC 272 wherein it was observed as under:- “26. Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. A careful reading of the provisions contained in Order 22 of CPC as well as the subsequent amendments thereto would lend credit and support to the view that they were devised to ensure their continuation and culmination into an effective adjudication and not to retard the further progress of the proceedings and thereby non-suit the others similarly placed as long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any claim remain in tact and not lost forever due to the death of one or the other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in Order 22 are not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice. The fact that the Khata was said to be joint is of no relevance, as long as each one of them had their own independent, distinct and separate shares in the property as found separately indicated in Jamabandhi itself of the shares of each of them distinctly. We are also of the view that the High Court should have, on the very perception it had on the question of abatement, allowed the applications for impleadment even dehors the cause for the delay in filing the applications keeping in view the serious manner it would otherwise jeopardize an effective adjudication on merits, the rights of other remaining appellants for no fault of them. Interests of justice would have been better served had the High Court adopted a positive and constructive approach than merely scuttle the whole process to foreclose an adjudication of the claims of others on merits. The rejection by the High Court of the applications to set aside abatement, condonation and brining on record the legal representatives does not appear, on the peculiar nature of the case, to be a just or reasonable exercise of the Court's power or in conformity with the avowed object of Court to do real, effective and substantial justice. The rejection by the High Court of the applications to set aside abatement, condonation and brining on record the legal representatives does not appear, on the peculiar nature of the case, to be a just or reasonable exercise of the Court's power or in conformity with the avowed object of Court to do real, effective and substantial justice. Viewed in the light of the fact that each one of the appellants had an independent and distinct right of his own not inter- dependant upon the one or the other of the appellants, the dismissal of the appeals by the High Court in their entirety does not constitute a sound, reasonable or just and proper exercise of its powers. Even if it has to be viewed that they had a common interest, then the interests of justice would require the remaining other appellants being allowed to pursue the appeals for the benefit of those others, who are not before the Court also and not stultify the proceedings as a whole and non-suit the others, as well.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Ramesh B. Desai & Ors. Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors. reported in 2006 (5) SCC 638 that when a suit cannot be decided on the basis of preliminary issues, then the Court should decide the remaining issues as well. It has been held in para 13 as under:- “12. Sub-rule (2) of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC lays down that 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. The provisions of this Rule came up for consideration before this Court in Major S.S. Khanna vs. Brig. The provisions of this Rule came up for consideration before this Court in Major S.S. Khanna vs. Brig. F.J. Dillon AIR 1964 SC 497 , and it was held as under:- "Under O. 14 R. 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 the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined. The jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the Court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone, but the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should be tried by the Court: not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of law depends upon the decision of issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit." Though there has been a slight amendment in the language of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC by the Amending Act, 1976, but the principle enunciated in the above quoted decision still holds good and there can be no departure from the principle that the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issue of law and fact as a preliminary issue and where the decision on issue of law depends upon decision of fact, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue.” 13. Hence it is clear that the Courts are expected to decide all the issues together unless the bar of jurisdiction of Court or bar to the suit in terms of sub-rule (ii) Clause (a) and (b) arises. 14. Here, in the instant case, the other mixed question of facts and law are also involved in the election petition whether the respondent No.1 disclosed or concealed the information regarding his conviction in a criminal case and whether his such act amounts to disqualification under Section 19 of the Act of 1994 or not. 14. Here, in the instant case, the other mixed question of facts and law are also involved in the election petition whether the respondent No.1 disclosed or concealed the information regarding his conviction in a criminal case and whether his such act amounts to disqualification under Section 19 of the Act of 1994 or not. These disputed question of facts are required to be decided on the basis of evidence of both the parties. 15. In view of above, this petition stands partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 01.04.2022 stands quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Election Tribunal to decide the election petition on its merits, after giving a finding on all the issues on the basis of evidence to be led by both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Election Tribunal on 22.02.2024. It goes without saying that the Election Tribunal would decide the election petition expeditiously as early as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. 16. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 17. It goes without saying that the Election Tribunal would decide the election petition on the basis of evidence led by both sides on its merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.