1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.8.2011 as passed in Election Petition No. 1/2010 whereby the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dungarpur has allowed the election petition filed by the respondent No. 2 questioning the election of the petitioner to the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gada Meratia essentially on the ground that as on the relevant date of filing the nomination i.e., 3.2.2010, the petitioner was not qualified to contest the election for her date of birth being 17.10.1991 and she having not reached 21 years of age as per the requirements of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

2. The petitioner contested the election petition while asserting that her date of birth was 22.4.1988; and she was duly qualified to contest the election in question.After framing of the relevant issues, the parties led their evidence in which, in oral evidence AW-1 Smt. Jamna, AW-2 Smt. Leela, AW-3 Kushal Singh, AW-4 Shanker, AW-5 Khatu, AW-6 Kodarlal and AW-7 Smt. Jagdishwari Joshi were examined on behalf of the election-petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein) whereas NAW-1 Rekha, NAW-2 Rupa, NAW-3 Velji, NAW-4 Kamla Shanker, NAW-5 Ganga Sahaya Meena and NAW-6 Punamchand Kalal were examined on behalf of the present petitioner; and in documentary evidence, the respondent No. 2 produced the copies of the election result as Ex.1, the school certificate as Ex.2, the school admission register as Ex.3, and the voter-lists of village Bamaniyawara as Ex.4 and of village Mertiya as Ex.5 whereas the present petitioner produced the copies of the horoscope as Ex.A-1, the ration card as Ex.A-2, the election voters list as Ex.A-3, the birth certificate as Ex.A-4, and the school admission form, again marked as Ex.A-1.

3. After due appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court found the entries as made in the scholar's register (Ex.3) trustworthy of reliance and the defence as set up by the petitioner not worthy of credence; and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not completed 21 years of age as on the relevant date and was not qualified to contest the election. The learned trial Court, therefore, proceeded to accept the election petition and set aside the election of the petitioner but declined the prayer made by the respondent No. 2 for declaring herself elected. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the entire consideration of the learned trial Court has been from an altogether wrong angle and the learned trial Court has acted illegally in passing the order impugned and in setting aside the election of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has proceeded on the assumption that the election- petitioner had been able to establish the petitioner's date of birth as 17.10.1991' and for that matter, the learned trial Court has referred to a few aspects related with the so-called weakness of the case of the present petitioner and on that basis has accepted the case of the election-petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein). The learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi v. Smt.Sudesh Chaudhary, 1997 (2) RLR 141 and emphasised that the onus was heavy on the election petitioner to prove by cogent evidence that the date of birth of the petitioner was 17.10.1991 and mere production of the scholar register was not decisive of the matter. According to the learned counsel, even in relation to the said register (Ex.3), it has directly come in evidence that the entry regarding the date of birth of the petitioner was not made at the instance of the father or anybody else related with the petitioner and obviously, such an entry was made at the whims and wishes of the school staff that cannot be considered binding on the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the evid