Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Smt. Abha Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 8 and 9.

2. Petitioner before this Court is the elected Pradhan of village Butradi, Post Kabrouth, District Muzaffar Nagar. He is aggrieved by an order of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffar Nagar dated 4th March, 2008, whereunder the panchayat revision No. 39 of 2007 filed by the election petitioner under Section 12(c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, respondent No. 2 against the order of the Election Tribunal i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shamli, Muzaffar Nagar dated 12th February, 2007 dismissing her election petition No. 14 of 2005 has been allowed and the matter has been remanded for fresh hearing. The order so passed by the Additional District Judge was questioned before this Court earlier by respondent No. 2 being writ petition No. 53276 of 2006, wherein an order dated 22nd September, 2006 was passed requiring Election Tribunal to decide the election petition within four months from the date the order was filed before it.

3. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that an application was made by the elected candidate under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. On the said application, various dates were fixed, but for the reasons best know to the election petitioner she did not lead evidence and in these set of circumstances, the Election Tribunal has proceeded to decide the election petition. According to the petitioner the aforesaid facts and material on record demonstrate that the election petitioner was interested in delaying the election petition, despite having obtained an order from this Court for early disposal of the same, which required day today hearing. He submits that an attempt was made by the election petitioner to prolong the proceedings without any justifiable reasons. The facts have been completely ignored by the Revisional Court, while allowing the revision filed by the election petitioner. It is further pointed out that the Election Tribunal has determined the issues, which were to be examined for decision of the election petition and in absence of any evidence having been led by the election petitioner despite repeated opportunity, election petition was dismissed.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.

5. The Revisional Court after noticing the proceedings taken by the Election Tribunal has recorded as follows :

“......Parantu, Ka.Sa. 21/2 ke prakash meyn Adhinastha Nayayalay ke dwara vad bindu nirmit nahin kiye gaye aur na hi pakshkaron ko ush par sakchhya ka avsar hi diya gaya, jabki vidhi anushar 21/1 meyn jo apatti vipakshi ke dwara uthaee gayee thi vah bhi ushkey dwara prativad patra meyn uthayee jani chahiye thi aur ush par vad bindu nirmit kiye janey ke paschat avam pakshkaron ki sakshya ka avasar diye jane ke paschat vad ko antim roop se gun-dosh ke adhar par tay kiya jana chahiye tha athava ukt vad binduon jo adesh 7 niyam 11 Di.Pra.Sa. Ke sambandh meyn nirmit kiye jatey ushko prarambhik vad bindu ke roop meyn nishtarit kiya jana chahiye tha.”

6. From the aforesaid, it will be amply seen that the Revision Court has come to the conclusion that the issues for determination were not finalized nor sufficient opportunity was afforded to the election petitioner to lead evidence and in absence thereof, the order dismissing the election petition was legally not justified.

7. I have examined the order-sheets of the election petition myself and from the same I find that upto 14th December, 2006 written statement was not filed by the defendants (other than the writ petitioner) and it is only on the said date that opportunity to file written statement was closed against said defendants. On 18th D