ORDER : D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. [PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to reverse and set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram, in E.L.O.P.No.22 of 2020. PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and set aside the observation made in the order in so far as the direction for conduct of re election for the post of Panchayat President of Kottagudi Panchayat alone in the order dated 24.02.2022 in E.L.O.P.No.22 of 2020 before the Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram.] By an order dated 24.02.2022, the learned Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram, partly allowed the Election O.P.No.22 of 2020, thereby declaring that the Nomination Form submitted by the fourth respondent in the election petition to the post of Kottakudi Panchayat President was improperly accepted and it is invalid and void and consequently, the election of the fouth respondent was declared as invalid and void and the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission was directed to conduct re-election for the post of Kottakudi Panchayat President within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. Against the order declaring the election as void, the fouth respondent in the election petition, namely P.Uma Maheswari has filed C.R.P.(MD).No.476 of 2022. As against that portion of the order not granting the further reliefs of recounting the votes again and declaring the petitioner as elected, the petitioner in the election petition M.Balasubramanian has filed C.R.P.(MD).No.982 of 2022. As such, both the civil revision petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In C.R.P(MD).No.476 of 2022, an application is also filed for receipt of additional documents. The same is also dealt with together along with the main civil revision position. 3. P.Uma Maheswari and M.Balasubramanian filed nominations for the elections to the post of President of Kottakudi village Panchayat held on 27.12.2019. At the time of scrutiny of nomination, M.Balasubramanian objected to the acceptance of the nomination of P.Uma Maheswari. However, the objections were overruled and P.Uma Maheshwari's nomination was accepted. Upon counting of the votes polled, P.Uma Maheshwari was declared as elected. Challenging the same, the Election O.P. is filed by M.Balasubramanian under Section 258 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. 4. However, the objections were overruled and P.Uma Maheshwari's nomination was accepted. Upon counting of the votes polled, P.Uma Maheshwari was declared as elected. Challenging the same, the Election O.P. is filed by M.Balasubramanian under Section 258 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. 4. The contention on behalf of M.Balasubramanian, the lost candidate, is that P.Uma Maheswari and her husband had several properties and the pattas are marked as Ex.P6. The particulars of those properties were not mentioned in the forms submitted by the said P.Uma Maheswari along with the nomination form. It is the specific case that in the tabular column prescribed in Form 3 Column 11, the said Uma Maheswari has mentioned that she did not have any ancestral property and in respect of her husband also, she has said 'No' with reference to whether he had any self acquired or ancestral properties. The only properties, which are declared or that the said Uma Maheshwari possessed movable properties worth Rs.7,57,000/- and one self acquired property worth Rs.1,45,000/-. Therefore, the same amounts to material irregularity and willful suppression of information from the voters and thus, the petition is filed to declare the election as void. It is the contention of M.Balasubramanian that the nomination has wrongly been accepted and had the nomination been rejected, he would have been elected. 5. The election OP was resisted by the official respondents as well as by the elected candidate P.Uma Maheswari by filing separate written statements. In the written statement filed by the said Uma Maheswari, it was denied that she omitted to mention any of the properties possessed by herself or her husband. According to her, all the details were properly given and scrutiny was done properly and then only, her nomination was accepted. 6. In the teeth of the said pleadings, the parties went into trial and after trial, the learned Additional District Judge held that in the nomination form, in the tabular column under the caption 'Property Descriptions' contained in column No.11, the fourth respondent /Uma Maheshwari had mentioned as “No”, whereas by marking Ex.P6 it is proved that she had ancestral properties and her husband had also ancestral properties. The trial Court held that the detailed affidavit in Form 3( filed under Rule 26 (2-A)) was not at all produced by the parties. The trial Court held that the detailed affidavit in Form 3( filed under Rule 26 (2-A)) was not at all produced by the parties. In the absence thereof, when the petitioner has alleged certain properties has not been shown, the same is found to be correct as per column No.11, the trial Court allowed the petition and set aside the election, while directing the Election Commission to reconduct the election in respect of the said panchayat within a period of six months, as against the same, the present civil revision petitions are filed. 7. Mr. S. Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ Uma Maheshwari taking this Court through the original nomination form and the hand copy of the affidavit, which was in possession of the petitioner and the additional document, which is now produced in the form of the affidavit, would submit that the Court had come to a conclusion without even looking into the entire nomination papers. It was incumbent on the part of the learned District Judge to have scrutinised the entire nomination form and then only, the trial Court ought to have concluded that the petitioner suppressed information. Even though it was an error while filling up the tabular column in column No. 11 in the Nomination Form, however, in the affidavit that was filed along with the Nomination Form, all the properties are mentioned. In Page No. 5 of the affidavit, in the tabular column, in respect of the captioned “Agricultural Properties and Survey Numbers”, all the survey numbers, which are standing in the name of the said Uma Maheshwari and which were standing in the name of her husband were duly mentioned. The said affidavit along with the Nomination Form was displayed in the election booth and therefore, the voters had the information. When there is no any willful suppression of material fact and when the voters had the information, then the Court should lean in favour of reaffirming the popular mandate and should not upset the popular mandate on hyper technical grounds. 8. The learned counsel would also submit that though the petitioner could have summoned the said document, since it was for the petitioner to have first summoned the entire nomination papers and to prove the suppression of material fact, the said exercise was not done. 8. The learned counsel would also submit that though the petitioner could have summoned the said document, since it was for the petitioner to have first summoned the entire nomination papers and to prove the suppression of material fact, the said exercise was not done. Since the official respondents were also there and they were being present as parties, the Court ought to have called for the original file itself and should have determined the issue. He would submit that in any event, now, before this court, the original file is there. From the original file, it can be seen that the affidavit filed along with the application for reception of additional document was filed as a matter of fact and as per the records, the same was displayed in the notice board and therefore, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the petition and this Court should interfere by way of this civil revision petition. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.M.Balasubramanian would submit that the affidavit has now surfaced only for the first time. Already the allegation is that P.Uma Maheswari's husband is working as a Block Development Officer and only because of him, the nomination was not scrutinized properly. Even before this Court, originally a different affidavit with a different date is produced n Page 54 of the original typed set of papers and a different affidavit with a different date is now sought to be produced as an additional document. The additional document cannot be received at this stage. The petitioner should have marked the said document. No special reason is mentioned to produce the same as an additional document, at the revisional stage. He would submit that the election petition itself is a time bound petition and already now more than 4 ½ years is over and therefore, now, even this Court cannot permit the matter for conduct of re-trial in respect of the additional documents. The additional documents cannot be relied upon at this stage without giving an opportunity to cross-examine. He would further submit that originally, even in column 11 in the tabular column, the information furnished is erroneous and therefore, even in the first affidavit, which is filed along with the main civil revision petition, all the properties are not mentioned and therefore, the trial Court was right in setting aside the election as void. He would further submit that originally, even in column 11 in the tabular column, the information furnished is erroneous and therefore, even in the first affidavit, which is filed along with the main civil revision petition, all the properties are not mentioned and therefore, the trial Court was right in setting aside the election as void. But, however, the trial Court ought to have seen that there were no other candidates and in the absence of any other candidate by following the principles laid down under Section 101 of the Representation of Peoples Act, ought to have declared the petitioner one M.Balasubramanian as the successful candidate. To that extent, he would submit that this Court should interfere with the order of the trial Court. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of either side and perused the material records of the case. 11. At the outset, it can be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Common Cause Vs. Union of India ( 2008 5 SCC 511 ) has held that the right of the voters to know about the assets of the candidates is very vital and the absence thereof, would vitiate the election process itself. Only towards achieving the said purpose, these forms were introduced and it is mandated that the same should be displayed at the Booth for the voters to have information. In that view of the matter, if there is any suppression of the properties or furnishing of incorrect details that would vitiate the election. However, a mere mistake or error in filling up the column without any intention to suppress and if the full information of the candidate is in public domain, then the Court will consider the issue differently and will not non-suit the candidate merely for the an error in filling up the form. 12. Now, adverting to the facts of the case from that perspective, firstly, it can be seen that the column 11 is erroneously filled up. The argument of the learned counsel for P.Uma Maheshwari that was only an innocuous error and the particulars are given in the affidavit. The said affidavit was not summoned by the said P.Uma Maheswari during the course of the trial. Neither it was produced by the official respondents. The argument of the learned counsel for P.Uma Maheshwari that was only an innocuous error and the particulars are given in the affidavit. The said affidavit was not summoned by the said P.Uma Maheswari during the course of the trial. Neither it was produced by the official respondents. Even though the trial Court could have also summoned the said document and marked as a Court document, the fact remains that it was not produced before the trial Court during the trial. 13. In this background, in the Civil Revision Petition filed by P.Uma Maheshwari originally an affidavit is filed, which was dated 11.12.2019, which was engrossed in stamp paper bearing serial No.4631, dated 11.12.2019. The original affidavit, which is now sought to be filed as an additional document and which is contained in the file, which is produced by the official respondent is engrossed in stamp paper bearing Serial No. 2826 and it is dated 12.12.2019. It can be seen that in the first affidavit, which is produced along with the civil revision petition not all the properties were mentioned. But, however, in the second affidavit, which is now sought to be marked as additional document, the particulars are mentioned. Since it is necessary to go into the merits of the case, even though it is alleged that with due diligence Uma Maheshwari could have summoned and marked these additional documents subject to the other objections and findings which are being rendered by this Court, the application in for reception of additional documents stands allowed and the documents are taken on record as Ex.No.R8 to R16. 14. It can be now seen that there are two affidavits on record. Even without considering the objection raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of M.Balasubramanian, taking the arguments of M.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Uma Maheswari on face value that the candidate normally prepare 2-3 affidavits, because everything is filed in a haste and even accepting the said explanation, even looking into the affidavit, which is now sought to be produced, which is engrossed in stamp paper bearing serial No.2826 dated 12.12.2019, still this Court is unable to accept the case of the petitioner P.Uma Maheswari for the following reasons. 15. In the additional affidavit one Sasikumar, Advocate/Commissioner of Oaths has singed in the stamp paper. It seems that it was originally signed as 11.12.2019 and there is overwriting. 15. In the additional affidavit one Sasikumar, Advocate/Commissioner of Oaths has singed in the stamp paper. It seems that it was originally signed as 11.12.2019 and there is overwriting. In the internal page No.1, which follows the stamp paper, the same Sasikumar has signed, it looks as if it is 11 or 12 or 13 of December 2011 and the date is very unclear. Even though the learned counsel would submit that it is dated 12th only, in the internal page 2 without even the signature of the said P.Uma Maheswari, the Advocate/ Commissioner of Oaths has signed. Similarly, in the internal page 4, again without even the signature of P.Uma Maheswari, the said Commissioner of Oaths has singed, however, without any date. In page No.6 also, without any signature of P.Uma Mageswari and date, the person has signed. Similarly in page No.5 also, the same is repeated. In page No.12 there is seal alone even the said Sasikumar has not signed. Therefore, it can be seen that the affidavit which is now produced does not command any confidence of the Court. The entire affidavit does not seems to be properly attested by the Advocate/Commissioner of Oaths. It seems that in blank papers, the seal was affixed. Even in the blank papers, in some of the pages signatures are found, in some of the pages signatures are not found. The dates are different. The is difference in signature in each page.. Therefore, even taking the document on record, I am unable to give finding that a proper affidavit has been filed by the said P.Uma Maheswari before the Election Officer and accordingly, I am unable to conclude that the said P.Uma Maheswari has furnished clear and proper details in the Nomination Form and therefore, I am unable to interfere with the ultimate finding of the trial Court that the election is vitiated for improper furnishing of details. 16. As far as the further prayer on behalf of the said M.Balasubramanian is concerned, a perusal of Section 258 to 260 of Panchayat Act, there is no express provision for declaring the next candidate as the successful candidate. Secondly, such a prayer was also not made by the said M.Balasubramanim in the election petition. On the contrary, the prayer which was made is only to recount votes. Secondly, such a prayer was also not made by the said M.Balasubramanim in the election petition. On the contrary, the prayer which was made is only to recount votes. As a matter of fact, a modified relief in the form of fresh election was granted. Now less than six months are remaining for a period as it is going to end in December 2024. Neither recounting of votes nor by-election can be conducted at this stage. Therefore, this Court stops with declaring the election of P.Uma Maheswari as void and the vacancy need not be filled up at this stage as the general election is to take place in December-2024 or sooner thereafter. 17. With the modification to the Order of the Trail Court as above, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.