JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Purusottam Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. The instant petition has been filed praying for the following main relief:

"(i) Issue writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 1 in revision no. 15/2022 (Murali Prasad Verma vs Smt Subodh Kanti and others) as contained in annexure no. 1 to this petition."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared elected as Gram Pradhan of Village Fatehur, Block Pargana and Tehsil Safipur, District Unnao in the elections of the year 2021. The respondent no. 2 was one of the candidates in the said election. The respondent no. 2 filed an election petition before the prescribed authority under provisions of Section 12C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947) challenging the election of the petitioner. The election petition was dismissed vide the order dated 23.05.2022, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition. The respondent no. 2, being aggrieved, filed a revision before the learned District Judge, Unnao vide Civil Revision No. 15 of 2022 in re: Murali Prasad Verma vs Subodh Kanti and others and learned revisional court vide the order impugned dated 05.01.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority and remanded back the matter to the prescribed authority for deciding afresh in the light of the given directions.

4. The ground which prevailed on the revisional court in setting aside the order of the prescribed authority was that prior to passing of the order dated 23.05.2022 by the prescribed authority, no issues were framed. In this regard learned revisional Court has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Makhan Lal Bangal vs Manas Bhunia and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 652.

5. Raising a challenge to the order impugned by which the revisional court has remanded the matter to prescribed authority for deciding afresh on the ground of non framing of issues, the argument is that framing of issues is not a sine qua non to an election petition being decided in as much as the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not strictly applicable on an election petition filed under the provisions of the Act, 1947. In this regard reliance has been placed on judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kailas vs Nanhku and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480, Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs C. P. Joshi reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1127, Samar Singh vs Kedar Nath @ K. N. Singh and others reported in 1987 (supp) SCC 663, Tarlok Singh vs Municipal Corporation of Amritsar and another reported in (1986) 4 SCC 27 and K Venkateswara Rao and anothers vs Bekkam Narasimha Reddi and others reported in (1969) 1 SCR 679.

6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments the argument is that in all the aforesaid cases Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that provisions of the C.P.C. are not strictly applicable in an election petition and consequently the order of the revisional court whereby the matter has been remanded to the prescribed authority simply on the ground that no issues were framed prior to the prescribed authority dismissing the election petition calls for interference by this Court.

7. On the other hand, Shri Purusottam Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 contends that the provisions of the Act 1947 read with the rules which have been framed for deciding of the election petition namely the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1994) categorically provide the manner in which hearing of an election petition is to take place. He contends that this aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the case of Kulsum vs State of U.P. and o