JUDGMENT

A. K. PATNAIK, J. — The opposite party No.3 was declared elected as a Panchayat Samiti member of Rairakhol Panchayat Samiti. On 8.3.2002, Election Misc.Case No. 48 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner under Section 44-B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur challenging the election of opposite party No.3 as Samiti Member. On 20.9.2002, opposite party No.3 filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the said Election Misc.Case No. 48 of 2002 on the ground that a sum of Rs. 200/- as security for the cost has not been deposited along with the election petition and the election petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of the said Section 44-B of the Act. The petitioner filed an objection to the said petition dated 20.9.2002 filed by the opposite party No.3 contending inter alia that the provisions of Section 44-B of the Act were complied with. The learned Civil Judge refused to decide the aforesaid question of maintainability of the election misc.case initially by order dated 15.11.2002. Thereafter another petition was filed by the opposite party No.3 with a similar prayer, but the said prayer, was again rejected by the learned Civil Judge by order dated 6.1.2003. The opposite party No.3 then filed Civil Revision No.4 of 2003 before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur and the learned District Judge, passed order on 30.1.2003 admitting the revision and staying the trial of the aforesaid Election Misc.Case No.48 of 2003. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.1.2003, the petitioner has filed this writ peti¬tion under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submit¬ted that in the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act there is no provision similar to Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 providing for dismissal of an election petition on the ground that the same does not comply with the provisions under Section 117 of the said Act for deposit of costs along with the election petition. Hence, the election petition could not be dismissed by the trial Court for non-compliance of the provision of Section 44-B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act without taking evidence and trying the entire election petition on different issues. He further submitted that under the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the C.P.C., the trial Court has to deliver judgment on all issues including issues relating to jurisdiction of the Court or bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. He argued that Section 44-B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act provides that an election petition is to be presented togeth¬er with deposit of two hundred rupees as security for the costs within 15 days after the day on which the result of the election petition was announced. The petitioner’s case is that the results of the election were published in the office of the Collector, Sambalpur on 2.3.2002 and the deposit of cost having been made on 18.3.2002 was within time and the election petition cannot be thrown out only on the ground that provision of Section 44-B of the Panchayat Samiti Act has not been complied with.

3. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the opp.party No.3, on the other hand, submitted that the results of the election were announced on 1.3.2002 and the limitation of 15 days is to be counted after 1.3.2002 and so counted the limitation expired on 16.3.2002 and the deposit was made beyond 16.3.2002. Mr. Ray cited a decision of the Supreme Court in K.Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar and others, reported in AIR 1958 S.C. 687 and an unreported judgment of this Court dated 6.9.93 in O.J.C. No. 4025 of 1993 for the proposition that when security deposit is not made along with the election petition, the same has to be decided as a preliminary issue.

4. We have perused the decision of the Supreme Court in K.Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar and others (supra) cited by Mr Ray and we find that the