ORDER :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. Sustainability of the order dated 27.8.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.1939/2020 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed writ petition and remitted back the case to the Election Tribunal i.e. respondent No.3 herein, for deciding the matter afresh after framing issues and after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead evidence, is put to challenge in this writ appeal.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jairamnagar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur took place on 28.1.2020. Appellant along with private respondents herein contested the said election. After completion of counting of votes, result was declared in which respondent No.6 has been declared to be elected as she has secured total 1303 votes. Appellant secured second highest votes i.e. 1213. On 31.1.2020 appellant filed an objection before the Returning Officer with regard to irregularity in counting of votes and thereafter filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') before the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Masturi i.e. respondent No.3, with a prayer for recounting of votes. Respondent No.6 filed reply to election petition filed under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 denying the pleadings made therein. Apart from reply, respondent No.6 also filed preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of election petition on the ground that election petition has not been filed in accordance with the provisions contained under the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules of 1995'). The Presiding Officers of different polling booths of Gram Panchayat Jairam Nagar had also submitted their reply to election petition and denied the pleadings made therein.

3. During the course of proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Masturi, District Bilaspur, it is recorded in the proceeding dated 5.8.2020 that the parties requested to pass the order on the basis of pleadings, documents and written submissions as they do not want to lead any evidence and accordingly, the respondent No.3 allowed the prayer of the parties and fixed the case for orders on 10.8.2020. The proceeding dated 5.8.2020 reads thus:-

^^mHk;i{k vf/koDrk mifLFkrA mHk;&i{kdkj vf/koDrkvksa us fuosnu fd;k fd izdj.k esa l{k; is'k ugha djuk pkgrsA izdj.k esa izLrqr nLrkost fyf[kr rdZ dk voyksdu dj vkns'k ifjr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;s gSA izdj.k iwoZor voyksdukFkZ@vkns'kkFkZ**

4. On the next date of hearing i.e. 10.8.2020, respondent No.3 passed the order of re-counting of votes, fixing the date as 13.8.2020. After re-counting of votes, it is recorded that appellant secured 1237 votes; respondent No.6 secured 1211 votes and 153 votes have been found to be invalid. The order dated 10.8.2020 was put to challenge by respondent No.6 before the High Court by filing writ petition inter alia on the ground that order of re-counting of votes has been passed in a mechanical and cryptic manner without complying with the provisions of the Rules of 1995. It has also been urged in the petition that total votes recorded earlier have been found to be reduced from 3282 to 3216.

5. Writ petition filed by respondent No.6 herein was opposed by the appellant.

6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and taking note of the relevant provisions applicable to the facts of case, particularly Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995 and precedents on the issue, has allowed writ petition, set aside the order dated 10.8.2020 and remanded back the matter to the SDO (R), Masturi for fresh consideration after framing of issues and after affording opportunity of adducing evidence to the parties. It is this order which is subject matter of this appeal.

7. Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiya, learned counsel for appellant submits that both the parties had requested t