( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash two orders dated 13th September, 1957, and 21st September, 1957, passed by the Election Tribunal, Farrukhabad. The petitioner and opposite party No. 2 were both candidates for election as members of the U. P. Legislative Assembly from the Single Member etawah Constituency (No. 150), in the last general elections held in the beginning of the year 1957. On 10th March, 1957, the petitioner was declared as the duly elected candidate. On 23rd April, 1957, opposite party no. 2 presented an election petition before the Election commission accompanied by a treasury receipt in respect of a deposit of Rs. 1,000/- as security for costs of the election petition. On 12th May, 1957, the Election Commission passed the order under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act referring this petition for trial to the election Tribunal at Parrukhabad. The petition was notified by the Election Commission and. the election Commission fixed the 15th of July, 1957, as the date on which parties were required to appear before the Tribunal. On that day opposite party No. 2, who was the petitioner in the election petition, did not appear, whereas the present petitioner appeared and, asked for time to file a written statement The tribunal fixed the 5th of August, 1957, as the next date and for that date information through a post card was sent to opposite party No. 2 also. On that date again, opposite party No. 2 did not appear, whereas the present petitioner appeared and filed preliminary objections. Thereafter the next date fixed was 12th August, 1957. A registered letter was posted addressed to opposite party No. 2 Shri Hakim Haziq on 6th august, 1957, intimating to him that the 12th of August, 1957, had been fixed for the hearing of the petition. On that date, again, opposite party No. 2 was absent. The Tribunal heard the arguments on behalf of the present petitioner and then on 13th August, 1957, rejected the petition. On 14th August, 1957, opposite party No. 2 appeared and presented an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting that the order of dismissal of the petition in default be set aside. On 13th September, 1957, the order rejecting the petition passed on 13th August, 1957, was set aside. Thereafter on 18th September, 1957, the objections, which had been earlier filed by the present petitioner, came up. Arguments of parties were heard on those objections and the objections were rejected by the order dated 21st September, 1957. This order of 21st September, 1957, and the order dated 13th September, 1957, setting aside the order of rejection of the petition are the two orders which are challenged by the present writ petition.

( 2 ) THE ground, on which the validity of the order of 13th September, 1957, is impugned is that, though the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to the trial of an election petition by the Election Tribunal, there are other provisions in the Representation of the people Act which indicate that the provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied to the trial of an election petition. This inference is sought to be drawn by a reference to Sections 109 and 110 of the representation of the People Act which make a serious departure from the principle laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawal of suits already instituted. By these provisions, if a petitioner, who has filed an election petition, wants to withdraw the petition, the petition does not at once become liable to dismissal. The withdrawal, even without any permission to bring a fresh election petition, can only be made by leave of the Tribunal. When there are more than one petitioner, no application can be made for withdrawal by only one of them without the consent of all others. Then there are special provisions la