Honble Pankaj Mithal, J.—This is an appeal under Rule 49(1) of the U.P. Kshettra Samities (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1962 (for short, the Rules) framed under the U.P. Kshettra Samities Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 (for short, the Act).

2. The election to the post of Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Rajpur, Tehsil Sikandra, District Kanpur Dehat were notified and were held in the month of February 2006.

3. In the said elections, only three nominations for the post of Pramukh were received. One of the candidates withdrew his nomination. Therefore, the appellant Hari Om and the respondent Hakim Singh alone remained in the fray. The polling took place on 27.2.2006. There were only 55 voters and all of them voted.

4. The counting also took place on the same evening. Of the 55 votes cast, one ballot paper was rejected as invalid by the returning officer. Therefore, only 54 ballot papers remained for counting. Out of the 54 valid votes both the candidates polled 27 votes each and as such there was a tie. On account of tie lottery was drawn in accordance with clause 4 of schedule II of the Rules. On the basis of the lottery the returning officer declared Hari Om, appellant as the successful candidate.

5. On the declaration of the result respondent Hakim Singh who lost despite having polled equal number of votes, filed an election petition No. 2 of 2006 under Rule 35 of the Rules challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that four more ballot papers were invalid and were liable to be rejected. The non rejection of the said four invalid ballot papers has materially affected the result of the election.

6. The election petition was duly contested by the appellant by filing a written statement and it was contended that the alleged four ballot papers were not invalid and have rightly not been rejected by the returning officer under the rules. Thus, there is no illegality in the declaration of the result.

7. The Court below vide judgment and order dated 25.5.2007 allowed the election petition. It held that the alleged four ballot papers were invalid and were wrongly counted. On exclusion of the alleged four ballot papers the valid votes polled by the respondent would be 26 and that polled by the appellant would come to 24 votes. Therefore, the election of the appellant as Pramukh was set aside and the respondent was declared elected in his place.

8. Thus, aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Court below setting aside the election of the appellant and declaring the respondent as duly elected, the appellant has approached this Court by means of this appeal.

9. The appeal was not allotted a regular number on account of the fact that the appellant had not filed the certified copy of the decree. Under the amended provisions of Order XLI, Rule 1 C.P.C., the memorandum of the appeal is only required to be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment appealed against and there is no requirement for filing the certified copy of the decree.

10. Sri Navin Sinha Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.R. Singh learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in such cases no decree is actually drawn by the Court below and therefore, the report about the defect in presenting the appeal is incorrect. The said preposition is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Accordingly the appeal is treated as properly presented and the office is directed to allot a regular number to it.

11. Learned Counsel for both the parties agreed for the final disposal of the appeal at this stage only. Accordingly, I have heard Sri Navin Sinha Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri S.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.P. Chaudhari and R.B. Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

12. The only point for determination in the present appeal is as to whether the alleged four ballot papers were liable to be rejected as i