The provisions of Rule 19 of the M. P. Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962, regarding the deposit of security deposit are mandatory, and non-compliance with these provisions renders the revision petition invalid and liable to be dismissed.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is hereby assailing the order dated 28-2-1995 which has been passed against him by Ist Additional District Judge, Ratlam in the matter of Election Petition No. 7 of 1995 whereby the learned Additional District Judge allowed the said petition filed by Jagdish s/o Gangarani who happens to be opponent No. 1 in the present petitions.

( 2 ) FEW facts need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the controversy between the contesting litigants. Election were held for Sailana Municipal Council in the year 1994 and thereafter the President of Sailana Municipal Council was to be elected. Jagdish s/o Gangaram, as record shows also submitted his nomination paper for the purpose of plaing his claim for getting elected as President of Municipal Council. The record shows that his nomination paper was rejected by the concerned authority and, therefore, being aggrieved by the rejection, he submitted the said election petition. The learned Ist Additional District Judge considered all necessary facets and thereafter passed the said order which is being assailed by the present revision petitions.

( 3 ) THE petitioner first filed civil revision bearing No. 264/95 on 1-3-1995. When the said revision petition was filed, an objection was raised on behalf of opponent Jagdish making a grievance that the security deposit was not deposited at the time of presentation of Civil Revision No. 264/95 to the tune of Rs. 2504- which is required to be deposited in view of provisions of M. P. Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as M. P. Election Petition Rules ). The record further shows that on 2-3-1995 when revision petition No. 264/95 was called on for hearing on admission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought adjournment. The matter was then listed for further hearing on 10-3-1995. In the meanwhile on 7-3-1995 the present petitioner presented another revision petition before the High Court bearing No. 304 of 1995. At the time of presentation of said revision petition the present petitioner had deposited the said sum of Rs. 250/ -. So also he submitted an application making a prayer that he be permitted to withdraw Civil Revision No. 264/ 95 and his Civil Revision No. 304/95 be thereafter entertained.

( 4 ) NOW both these revision petitions have been called on for hearing on admission.

( 5 ) SHRI A. M. Mathur, Senior Counsel appearing with Shri K. G. Maheswari and Shri S. C. Agrawal, made submissions on relevant facets dealing with the merit of the order passed by Ist Addl. District Judge, Ratlam. Shri G. M. Chafekar, Senior counsel appearing with Shri S. R. Kochetta for opponent No. 1 raised objection that as the petitioner did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 19 of M. P. Election Petition Rules, Civil Revision No. 264 of 1995 deserves to be dismissed, ought to have been dismissed and, therefore, Civil Revision No. 304 of 1995 was also not tenable. Shri Raghuvanshi, Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for opponents 2 and 3 reiterated the same argument by adopting it.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel Shri Mathur placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the matter of Anup Pyarelal v. Baboolal Rambux (1979 MPLJ 487) for substantiating his argument touching the merits of the order impugned in both the revision petitions. He made reference to various facets depicted by the impugned order. But as I am of the opinion that the argument which has been advanced on behalf of opponent No. l deserves importance and finality so far as these two revision petitions are concerned, I need not discuss the argument which has been advanced by Shri Mathur, Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner on other facets speaking of the merit of the the order which has been assailed by the present revision petitions.

( 7 ) SHRI A. M. Mathur, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner with the assistance of Shri K. G. Maheswari pointed out the judgment of Privy Council in the matter of Abdull