Navin Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the State and the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.

2. The Respondent No. 2 filed Misc. Election Petition No. 22 of 2006 before the Munsif, Danapur, challenging the election of the petitioner as Mukhia of the Singhara Copa Gram Panchayat. The petitioner appeared, filed her written statement denying the allegations. A preliminary objection was also taken with regard to the maintainability of the suit. The challenge was that in absence of the details of corrupt practices under Sections 139 or 141 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the suit ought to be dismissed at the initial stage.

3. The court below by the impugned order dated 3.11.2006 rejected the objection holding that the issue of maintainability would not be decided as a preliminary issue and that it had necessarily to be decided along with other issues raised in the suit.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in A.I.R. 2004 Supreme Court 2036 (Chandrika Prasad Yadav V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.) in support of the proposition that in absenc