Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, since respondents 2 to 5 were shown as 'not necessary' vide Cause Title.

2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order and decretal order, dated 06-8-2007, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.775 of 2007 in Election O.P.No.12 of 2006, filed under Rule 5(i) and (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (for brevity, 'the Rules, 1995') and under Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to dismiss the main Election O.P., for non-compliance of mandatory provisions laid down under Rule 5(i) and (ii) of the Rules, 1995 and to decide the non-compliance of it as a preliminary objection.

3. The petitioner herein is respondent No.5, respondent No.1 is petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 are respondents 1 to 4, respectively, in the Election O.P., before the Court below.

4. The petitioner is the successful candidate in the election for the Gram Panchayat, Pedaprolu as Sarpanch. Challenging his election, respondent No.1 filed the present Election O.P. Along with the presentation of the Election O.P., prescribed amount of Rs.100/- as postulated under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 was not paid. Office of the Court below had returned the papers for presentation of the same after complying the objections. After complying the office objections, the election petition had been represented and trial had commenced. During the trial, the present I.A.No.775 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner stating that the election petition filed by respondent No.1 itself has to be dismissed in limini on the ground that there was no compliance of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995. The Court below dismissed the said application. Hence, the present civil revision petition.

5. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was declared as elected on 06-8-2006 as the Sarpanch of Pedaprolu Gram Panchayat. The election petition was filed by respondent No.1 on 14-8-2006. The presentation of Election O.P., was moved 'out of order' along with lodgment schedule to deposit the security costs of Rs.100/- with a request to issue challan on that date itself for being complied with, but the office of the Court below returned the same with regard to the maintainability of the petition basing on jurisdiction. However, four days thereafter i.e., on 18-8-2006 the election petition was represented by respondent No.1 after paying required deposit of Rs.100/- as envisaged under Rule 5(i) of the Rules, 1995 and thereafter, the trial had commenced.

6. During the course of trial, the present objection regarding non-compliance of Rule 5(i) of the Rules, 1995 was brought to the notice of the Court below by way of the present interlocutory application and sought for dismissal of the election petition as such.

7. For ready reference, Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 is extracted hereunder, to the extent relevant:

"5. (i) At the time of presentation of the petition, the petitioner shall deposit with it in cash Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) as security for the costs of the same.

Explanation:- Where the election of more than one returned candidate is called in question a separate deposit shall be made in respect of each such returned candidate.

(ii) If the provisions of sub-rule (1) are not complied with, the Election Tribunal shall dismiss the petition.

(iii) ............................................................."

8. From the above, it is obvious that Rule 5 is mandatory in nature, which postulates deposit of Rs.100/- as security towards the costs along with the presentation of the election petition. Non-compliance of the said provision would ex facie renders the election petition as