N.K. Patil, J.--The Petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order passed on I.A. No. I in E.P. No. 1 of 2000 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Koppal, dated 26.9.2000, dismissing the said application, has presented this revision petition.

2. The principal submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the material on record and contrary to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He vehemently contended that the petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 is not in accordance with Section 16(2) of the Act. The relevant provision reads as follows:

Section 16(2): Any schedule or Annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the Petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.

In the instant case, he has taken me through the original records available before this Court. After thorough verification, it is found that the Respondents has filed petition duly signed by him page to page only and verified. But, so far as Annexure is concerned, he has not put any signature as it is Annexures I to IV. Theref