1. - Aforesaid two special appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 19th February 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petitions filed by both the appellants against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lalsot, District Dausa setting aside election of one of them and refusing to declare the other one elected, were dismissed.

2. Both the appellants contested the election to the office of Member from Ward No. 6 of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot. When the appellant Meetha Lal filed his nomination paper, he submitted an affidavit therewith declaring that he was having only two children. First child Meenakshi was born on 10.12.1992 and second child Mintu on 4.2.2000. Anita Gaur, the other contesting candidate raised an objection before the Election Officer to the effect that Meetha Lal has concealed the fact with regard to birth of third child out of the wedlock of his marriage in the month of June, 2003. Since he had a third child born to him after the cut-off date, i.e., 27.11.1995, he was ts not eligible to contest the election as per the provisions of Rule 19(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act'). The Election Officer however rejected the objection and eventually the election was held and Meetha Lal was declared elected. The defeated candidate Anita filed election petition before the Court of District Judge under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules') read with Sections 43 and 19(1) of the Act, challenging his election on the ground that his nomination was improperly accepted for the aforestated reason and, therefore, his election be set aside and instead, she be declared elected, there being only two contesting candidates in the election. Election Petition was transferred to the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Lalsot, for trial. The learned Civil Judge framed two issues. Issue No. 1 was to the effect whether the returned candidate Meetha Lal on account of having had third child born to his wife in June, 2003 was ineligible to contest the election and for that reason, his nomination paper filed on 13.1.2005 was liable to be rejected? Issue No. 2 was to the effect whether the defeated candidate Anita Gaur was entitled to get herself declared elected upon eventual rejection of the nomination paper of the returned candidate Meetha Lal? The learned Civil Judge decided issue no. 1 in favour of the election petitioner Anita Guar but at the same time decided issue no. 2 against her. Accordingly, the election petition was allowed in part and the election of Meetha Lal was set aside vide judgment dated 17.10.2006. Since the prayer for recrimination was rejected, the election petitioner Anita Gaur filed review petition before the learned Civil Judge which was also dismissed vide order dated 28.2.2007. Both the candidates filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the aforesaid judgments which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment.

3. We have heard Dr. P.C. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner Anita Guar and Shri R.K. Mathur, the learned counsel appearing for Meetha Lal.

4. Dr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the election petitioner Anita Gaur has argued that the learned Civil Judge erred in law in not declaring Anita Gaur elected even though he set aside the election of the returned candidate Meetha Lal by recording a finding that his nomination was illegally accepted. Learned counsel argued that the finding of the learned trial court that there so was no material on record to show that only two candidates contested the election was wholly perverse because the case of the election petitioner Anita Gaur throughout was that only two candidates contested the election. This was proved also from the result sheet, certified copy of which was produced on record as Ex. 10 in which name of only two candidates as recorded as contesting. This assertion of the election