1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent-State and learned Counsel for private respondent No. 2.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the defendant in the election case for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 09.10.2002, by which learned Munsif, Sadar, Sitamarhi, allowed the two amendment petitions filed by the election petitioner (respondent No. 2 in this Court ), in Election Case No. 06 of 2001.

3. When this case was earlier taken up for hearing in the admission matter on 07.07.2004 before a learned Single Judge, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Bambhola Rai v. State Election Commission, Bihar and Ors. reported in 2004 (21 PLJR 400. in which it was held that the election petitions are to be governed by the Bihar Panchayat Raj Art and the Bihar Panchavat Election Rules and the detailed procedure of Civil Procedure Code will not apply to such cases, except with respect to the manner of hearing of the election petition, which does not include the amendment of the plaint/ pleadings/election petition It was also held in the said decision that the amendment cannot be held to be legal as the plaintiffs evidence had already been closed and six witnesses of defendant had been examined before filing of the amendment petition. In the said circumstances, the learned Single Judge, who was hearing this case, referred the matter to a Division Bench keeping in view the importance of the matter and also the fact that a decision on the question shall have hearing on a large number of election petitions.

4. In the instant case, Election Petition No. 06 of 2001 was filed by respondent No. 2 in June, 2001 challenging the election of the writ petitioner on the post of Mukhiya of Mahadeopatti Gram Panchayat within Parihar Police Station in the district of Sitamarhi. Thereafter, a written statement was filed by the writ petitioner in the said case and when both the parties completed their evidence, the same was closed and the date for arguments of the parties was fixed. Rut before the arguments could start, respondent No. 2 filed two petitions dated 11.02.2002 and 13.05.2002 (Annexures 3 and 4. respectively for amendment of her pleadings in the election petition, against which two rejoinders were filed by the writ petitioner in the said election petition on 14.2.2002 and 12.6.2002 (Annexures 5 and 6, respectively). Learned Counsel for both the parties were heard by the court below and by the impugned order dated 09,10.2002, it allowed the said petitions and directed the election petition to be amended accordingly.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that there is no provision under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993 for the sake of brevity) or under the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 ( hereinafter referred to as the Rule of 1995 for the sake of brevity) for amendment of the election petition and hence the detailed procedure of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity) will not apply to the instant case except with respect to the manner of hearing of the matter of the election petition as has been provided under Rule 111 of the said Rules, but the manner of hearing does not include the amendment of the plaint/pleading/election petition. It was also the claim of the petitioner that in the instant case the evidence of the parties had already been closed and the case was fixed for argument when the amendment petitions were filed, hence there was no occasion for the learned court bellow to allow the amendments at such a belated stage. On both the aforesaid counts learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, an order allowing the amendment petition was quashed by a learned Single Judge in the case of Bambhola Rai (supra).

6. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 o