ORDER : (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) and the petitioner may be allowed to continue to hold the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat – Bhitthikala, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh for the remaining period of her tenure. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Election Tribunal/Respondent No. 2 where, the election petition filed by the Respondent No. 5 was allowed and the election of the petitioner was declared to be void. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Election Tribunal while considering the election petition filed by the Respondent No. 5 has not followed the due procedure as prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Rules, 1995). He contended that at the time of filing of the election petition, the election petitioner has not deposited the requisite fee along with the election petition and overlooking the same, the election petition was admitted and is ultimately been allowed. In absence of the requisite fees, the election petition could not have been admitted and allowed as filed by the Respondent No. 5. He also contended that the election petition was filed beyond the period of limitation and therefore, the election petition ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of limitation. Specific plea has been taken in the reply also, however, the Election Tribunal without following the due procedure as prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 without framing issues and recording of evidence of the parties have decided the election petition which is also contrary to the provisions prescribed under the Rules, 1995 and therefore, the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 submits that the petitioner after filing of the reply became ex parte and therefore, the Election Tribunal based on the material available has decided the election petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 submits that the petitioner after filing of the reply became ex parte and therefore, the Election Tribunal based on the material available has decided the election petition. However, he do not dispute the submission of the counsel for the petitioner based on the Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner along with the Respondent No. 5 contested the election of Sarpanch, Village Panchayat – Bhittihikala, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh in which the petitioner became successful and was elected as Sarpanch. Her election was questioned by the Respondent No. 5 by way of filing an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The election petition was filed on 04.03.2020. From the pleadings made in the reply as discussed in the impugned order, it appears that the returning officer issued the election certificate on 31.01.2023 and the petitioner has also raised the ground with regard to the maintainability of election petition and ground of limitation and further that the election petitioner has not deposited the requisite fees as mandated under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995. 7. Perusal of the order-sheets placed on record by the counsel for the Respondent No. 5 would show that the issues based on the pleadings made by the respective parties has not been formulated, and is also not reflecting from the impugned order dated 22.11.2021. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the Election Tribunal has not formulated the isssues before proceeding with the reply is not disputed by the counsel for the Respondent No. 5 based on the order-sheets placed on record. The petitioner who was non-applicant was proceeded ex parte on 24.01.2021. On the said date, the election petitioner submitted an affidavit under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Election Tribunal without recording that right to corss-examine the witness who filed affidavit is closed and further that election pettiioner, declared his evidence closed, fixed the case for argument, fixing the date of hearing on 20.10.2021. On 06.10.2021, the election petitioner filed application for urgent hearing on which, notice was issued to Non-applicant No. 1/petitioner fixing date on 13.10.2021 preponing the date of hearing. On 06.10.2021, the election petitioner filed application for urgent hearing on which, notice was issued to Non-applicant No. 1/petitioner fixing date on 13.10.2021 preponing the date of hearing. On 13.10.2021, without recording that whether notice issued was served or not, heard arguments of election petitioner on preponed date and fixed the case for order on 25.10.2022. 8. The election of the petitioner was challenged on the ground that the petitioner/returned candidate does not belong to the Scheduled Caste community and the Election Tribunal without recording any evidence, only on the basis of the pleadings and the affidavit submitted under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 of election petitioner passed impugned order, which, in view of the specific provision under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 is not sustainable. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 which is relevant is extracted below for ready hand reference:- “11. Procedure before the specified officer and his powers.- (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits: Provided that it shall only be necessary for the specified officer to make a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of any witness examined by him. (22) The specified officer, shall have the powers which are vested ina Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when trying a suit in respect of the following matters:- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and requiring the desposit of their expenses; (c) compelling the production of document; (d) examination of witnesses on oath; (e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and (f) issuing commission for examination of witnesses and summoning and examining suo moto any person whose evidence, appears to him to be material.” 9. Perusal of the aforementioned provision would show that it provides that election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly as in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to the trials of the suits. For trial of the suit after completion of the pleadings i.e. the plaint, the written statement, the Election Tribunal is required to formulate the issues for decision and thereafter, to fix the case for recording of the evidence. For trial of the suit after completion of the pleadings i.e. the plaint, the written statement, the Election Tribunal is required to formulate the issues for decision and thereafter, to fix the case for recording of the evidence. In case of Mohan Lal Diwakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2006 (1) CGLJ 105, this Court has considered the issue of non-compliance of the provisions under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995. 10. In case of Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 652 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in an election petition issues are to be framed and trial evidence has to be adduced. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that trial of an election petition is like a civil trial and framing of issues and recording of evidence are necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute. It has been observed in the aforesaid case as under: “An election petition is like a civil trial, the stage of framing the issues is an important one in as much as on that day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on which the trial shall proceed excluding diversions and departures therefrom. The date fixed for settlement of issues is, therefore, a date fixed for hearing. The real dispute between the parties is determined, the area of conflict is narrowed and the concave mirror held by the Court reflecting the pleadings of the parties pin-points into issues, the disputes on which the two sides differ. The correct decision of civil lis largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided. The scheme of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with settlement of issues shows that an issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other should form the subject of a distinct issue. An obligation is cast on the Court to read the plaint/petition and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, the material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. An obligation is cast on the Court to read the plaint/petition and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, the material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their Counsel are bound to assist the Court in the process of framing of issues. Duty of the Counsel does not be little the primary obligation cast on the Court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission. The petition may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears that the parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of fact and the Court may at once pronounce the judgment. If the parties are at issue on some questions of law or of fact, the suit or petition shall be fixed for trial calling upon the parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact. The evidence shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceeding issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided." 11. In the case at hand, the Election Tribunal has not followed the said procedure. For the foregoing discusssions as also, the decisons as mentioned above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Election Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Respondent No. 2 has committed gross illegality in deciding the election petition vide the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) without following the due procedure as prescribed under the Rules of 1995 and therefore, it is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) is set-aside. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) is set-aside. 12. Section 122 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 provides for limitation of 30 days for filing election petition which in election matter is not extendable. Law of limitation is not made applicable to the election laws. Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995 deals with deposit of security of Rs. 500, it is mandatory and non-deposit of requisite fee along with Election Petition or within the limitation of filing Election Petition, the Election Petition cannot sustain and it has to be dismissed for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995. 13. In case of Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi, reported in 1986 (Supp.) SCC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:- “3.2 Since the Court has the power to act at the threshold, the powers must be exercised at the threshold itself in case the Court is satisfied that it is a fit case for the exercise of such power and that exercise of such power is warranted under the relevant provision of law.” 14. Considering the fact that the impugned order is set-aside on the ground that, due procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1995 has not been followed and further that the Election Tribunal has not considered the objection raised in the reply submitted by the petitioner with respect to the deposit of requisite fees at the time of filing election petition and not filing of the election petiton within limitation, the election petition is remitted back to Election-Tribunal-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Respondent No.2 for deciding the election petitioni afresh in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Rules, 1995 formulating the issue and considering the reply and the objections raised by the non-applicant therein. The Tribunal shall be under obligation to consider the preliminary objection with regard to limitation and non-deposit of requisite court fee first and if satisfied with the fulfillment of mandatory requirement, then to proceed further. 15. With the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition is disposed of. Consequence of this order to follow.