Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J.- The petitioner has filed present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by the applicant-defendant No.4 Smt. Kimati (petitioner herein), was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, plaintiff Smt. Krishna (respondent No.1 herein) had filed an election petition titled as “Krishna Versus District Panchayat Election Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Rewari and others challenging the election of petitioner Smt. Kimati to the office of Panch of Gram Panchayat, Ambarpur, Block Rewari. The election to the office of the Gram Panchayat was held on 10.01.2016 for which nominations were filed between December 23, 2015 to December 29, 2015. As per the election petition, defendant No.4 Smt. Kimati (petitioner herein), who was elected as a Panch, was disqualified as she had furnished wrong facts in the nomination form. During pendency of the petition, defendant No.4 Smt. Kimati (petitioner herein) had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint taking various grounds including the fact that no cause of action has accrued to plaintiff Smt. Krishna (respondent No.1 herein) to file the election petition as an election petition can be filed on the two grounds i.e. (i) returned candidate committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section(5) of Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; and (ii) some irregularities or illegalities were committed during the course of counting. However, no such allegation has been levelled by the plaintiff in the election petition and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

3. The plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) filed reply to the said application controverting the averments made in the application.

4. Vide impugned order dated 17.04.2017 passed by learned civil Court, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner-defendant No.4 has filed present civil revision impugning the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by learned civil Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the stand of the petitioner as made in paragraph No.4 of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He has argued that the election petition can be filed only on two grounds i.e. (i) returned candidate committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section(5) of Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; and (ii) some irregularities or illegalities were committed during the course of counting. He has further argued that even if the father-in-law of the petitioner is a defaulter, it does not have any bearing upon the candidature of the petitioner.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 empowers the civil Court to determine the validity of election inquiry and the procedure thereof and the same is reproduced hereunder:

“176. (1) If the validity of any election of a member of a Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chairman or Vice-Chairman, President or Vice-President of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad respectively is brought in question by any person contesting the election or by any person qualified to vote at the election to which such question relates, such person may at any time within thirty days after the date of the declaration of results of the election , present an election petition to the civil court having ordinary jurisdiction in the area within which the election has been or should have been held, for the determination of such question.

(2) A petitioner shall not join as respondent to his election petition except the following persons :—

(a) where the petitioner in addition to challenging the validity