1. The 1st respondent filed Election O.P.No.1 of 2006 before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, at Metpalli, challenging the election of the petitioner, as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Ramalachakkapet Village. Notices were ordered and on receipt of notice, the petitioner filed I.A.No.5 of 2007, under Order VI, Rule 15 read with Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. In the affidavit, filed in support of the I.A., the petitioner stated that the 1st respondent was under obligation to file an affidavit, as required under proviso to Section 26, read with Rule 15 (4) of Order VI C.P.C., and since the requirement was not complied with, the O.P. is liable to be rejected. The 1st respondent opposed the I.A., by filing a counter-affidavit. Through its order dated 16-03-2007, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P.

2. Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Parliament had caused extensive amendments to C.P.C., through Acts 46 of 1999 and 22 of 2002, and one of the important amendments to Section 26 of Order XV C.P.C., which made it mandatory that the contents of a plaint must be proved through an affidavit. He contends that an election O.P., filed under the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act'), and the Rules made thereunder, is governed by the provisions of the C.P.C., and the petition ought to have been supplemented by an affidavit. Learned counsel points out that, since it is a serious irregularity of non-compliance, the O.P. itself was liable to be rejected.

3. Sri P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the proceedings in which the election to the office of Sarpanch are challenged; are governed by the Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads Rules, 1995, (for short 'the Rules'), framed under the Act, and the requirement under Section 26 of C.P.C., read with Order VI, does not apply to such petitions.

4. This Court requested Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel, to assist it, on this aspect. He too had addressed arguments, touching on various aspects, including the applicability of the amendment to the C.P.C. to the proceedings, that are initiated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

5. Basically, the I.A. filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. Through the said I.A., he wanted the trial Court to reject the petition, under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. A careful examination of Order VII Rule 11 discloses that a plaint can be rejected only on the grounds mentioned therein, and the one, pleaded by the petitioner, does not fit into any of them. Even if there was a non-compliance with a procedural requirement, on the part of the 1st respondent, it would have been, at the most, a case for return of the petition, for compliance. Therefore, the I.A., itself was untenable.

6. It is no doubt true, that C.P.C. was amended, by the Parliament, to the effect that, in addition to presenting a plaint, a plaintiff must file an affidavit, swearing to the facts, mentioned in the plaint. The corresponding amendment was incorporated in Rule 15 of Order XVI also. Had it been a case where the Act and the Rules made, the C.P.C., in its entirety applicable, both as to form and content of the petition, there would have been an occasion for insisting that the 1st respondent ought to have filed an affidavit also, in addition to presenting the petition. Rule 3 of the Rules reads as under:

"Rule 3 (1): The election petition shall be presented within thirty days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election. Explanation:- If the Court of the Subordinate Judge or the District Munsiff, as the case may be, or the Office of the Officer of the Government who is the Election Tribunal is closed on the last day of the thirty days aforesaid, the petition may be presented to the Election Tribunal on the next day afterwards on which such Court or T