H.N. Sarma, J.

1. This batch of revision petitions are directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), West Tripura, acting as election Tribunal thereby rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 6, Rule 16 read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The points calling for adjudication and decision being more or less common and similar learned Counsel for appearing parties prayed for hearing the petitions analogously and accordingly these are heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. As a lead case the facts of CRP No. 46/2010 is taken up for reference in this judgment.

2. Heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for the Defendants/Petitioners and Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 (returned candidate) as well as Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1.

3. The Respondent No. 1 as Plaintiff filed an application under Section 198 of the Tribunal Panchayat Act read with Rule 70 of the Tripura Panchayat (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 praying for declaring the election of the returned candidate as member of Kalyanpur Gram Panchayat as void with further prayer for declaring the Petitioner as elected member of the aforesaid Panchayat from Constituency No. V, Seat No. 10. The aforesaid application was registered as Case No. T.S. 17/09.

4. Upon receipt of summon of the suit the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 appeared but they have not yet filed their written statement. However, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application praying for rejecting the plaint filed by the Plaintiff under the provision of Order 6, Rule16 read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the aforesaid application, it is contended inter alia that the election petition is not maintainable in the present form, that the relief claimed in the petition is not permissible under the law as the Petitioner did not ask for recounting of the ballot papers before the returning officer and that the Petitioner has not disclosed materials particulars on which the election of the returned candidate is challenged, that the Petitioner alongwith the verification has not filed an affidavit as required under Section 26 read with Order 6, Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the Petitioner did not ask for recounting as provided Rule under 70 of the Rules. At the time of hearing of the aforesaid application, the Petitioner also agitated that the election petition is barred by limitation as it was not filed within sixty days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. The Plaintiff resisted the application and the arguments of both sides having been heard the learned Tribunal vide impugned order rejected the petition filed by the Respondents. The learned trial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the suit was neither barred by limitation nor it can be said that no material particulars have been disclosed by the Plaintiff in support of the petition. The learned Tribunal also held that although the plaint was not supported by an affidavit by the Plaintiff at the time of filing of the petition but later on the same was filed and the defect, if any, due to non-filing of the affidavit was rectified.

5. Mr. Majumder, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the election petition was filed on 22.9.09 but at the time of filing of the application, the election petition was not supported by an affidavit alongwith the verification as required to be filed under the provisions of Section 26 read with Order 6, Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure such requirement of furnishing an affidavit in support of the pleadings is a statutory requirement but the Plaintiff failed to comply with the said requirement and the affidavit was filed eventually on 27.9.09 and accordingly on the d