JUDGMENT

R.N. BISWAL, J. — The petitioner calls in question the judgment dated 10.9.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Dhen¬kanal in F.A.O. No. 26 of 2007 reversing the judgment dated 18.8.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Dhenkanal in Election Petition No. 24 of 2007 declaring the election of opp. party to the office of Sarpanch of Digambarpur G.P. as null and void and consequentially declaring the petitioner as duly elected Sarpanch in her place.

2. The petitioner, sole opp.party and three others contested for the office of Sarpanch of Digambarpur G.P. under Gondia Block in the district of Dhenkanal held on 19.2.2007. Since the opp. party polled the highest number of votes, she was declared elected to the said office on 22.2.2007.

3. Being aggrieved with the declaration of the said re¬sult, the petitioner filed Election Petition No. 24 of 2007 before learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Dhenkanal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Election Tribunal’) along with a petition for condonation of delay in filing it, mainly on the ground that the office of Sarpanch of the aforesaid G.P. was reserved for Other Backward Class (Women), the opposite party does not belong to the said class, as her caste was Kshyatriya. During the time of filing of nomination by the opp. party, the petitioner challenged her candidature before the Returning Officer and requested him not to accept her nomination, but still then, he accepted it. It is the further case of the petitioner that she secured the second highest number of votes.

4. Opp. party in her counter admitted that she was born in a Kshyatriya family. Her husband is also Kshyatriya by caste, but according to her, the caste Agnikula Kshyatriya having been notified as Socially and Educationally Backward Class, the caste Kshyatriya will come under it. It is her specific case that Ext. 7 was issued by the Addl. Tahasildar, Gondia, certifying that she is a member of Socially and Educationally Backward class. More¬over, no body challenged her candidature before the Returning Officer while filing the nomination. It is her further case that even though opp. party was quite heal and hearty, still then she did not file the Election Petition within the statutory period and manufactured some documents to fit into her plea that she was ill from 28.2.2007 to 19.3.2007.

5. On the above pleadings of the parties, the Election Tribunal framed three issues. In order to prove her case, while the petitioner examined two witnesses including herself, as P.W.1, opp. party examined three witnesses to prove her stand.

6. After assessing the evidence on record, the Election Tribunal allowed the Election Petition and declared the election of the opp. party as null and void on the ground that she does not come under Socially and Educationally Backward class and further declared the Election Petitioner to have been duly elect¬ed as Sarpanch of Digambarpur G.P.

7. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, the opp. party preferred F.A.O. No. 26 of 2007 before the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal, who set aside the judgment passed by the Elec¬tion Tribunal on the grounds; that the Election Officer was not made a party in the Election Petition; that an Election Petition cannot be accepted beyond the period prescribed therefore and that the opp. party being Kshyatriya by caste in included within Agnikula Kshyatriya.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Election officer is neither a necessary nor a proper party in an Election Petition. Section 32 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘G.P. Act’) describes the persons, who are to be made parties in an Election Petition. There is nothing to show that the Election Officer is required to be made a party in such a petition. He further sub¬mits that learned District Judge, Dhenkanal committed gross error in holding that in no circumstance an Election Petition can be filed beyond the prescribed limit. As envisaged u