1. An election-petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the election conducted under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) stand dismissed. The basis for dismissal is that full security amount was not deposited, at the time of presentation of the petition. The petitioner submits that initially a sum of Rs. 50/- was deposited. He further submits that later on this deficiency was made good and a further sum of Rs. 200/- was deposited. He submits that as the deficiency was made good during the period of limitation, therefore, the petition could not be dismissed. The relevant rules which deal with deposit of security and presentation of election petition be noticed. These are rules 3, 7 and 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petition Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991. These read as under :-

"3. Presentation of Elections Petitions--

(1) The election petition shall be presented to the prescribed authority during the office hours by the person making the petition, or a person authorised, in writing, in this behalf by the person making the petition within 30 days from the date on which the election or co-option in question was notified.

(2) However, election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and other such copies shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be true copy of the petition." .

"7. Deposit of Security-- At the time of presentation of an election petition the petitioner shall deposit with the prescribed authority a sum of rupees two hundred and fifty as security for cost of petition. Where election or co-option of more than one candidate is called in question, separate deposit of an equivalent amount shall be required in respect of the such returned candidate.'

"8. Procedure on receiving petition --If the provisions of rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the prescribed authority shall dismiss the petition:

Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard."

2. A perusal of rule 8 indicates that the election petition is to be presented complete in all respects. Thus requirement of deposit of security is mandatory. There is no dispute with regard to this. .

3. As a matter of fact this was so held by this Court in Mangilal v. S.D.O. Chanchoda & others, [1996 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 134].

4. The argument in the present petition is that deficient security amount was deposited within the period of limitation and therefore the Election Petition should be deemed to have been properly presented.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents have argued that unless and until there is valid presentation in terms of rule 8, the election petition has to be rejected at the very threshhold. According to him, the prescribed authority is not supposed to wait till the period of limitation is over.

6. I am of the view of the correct interpretation is that if the default is made good within the period of limitation then the presentation of the Election Petition would be valid presentation and it would be demeed to have been presented on the date on which the default is made good. In the view, I have taken, I am fortified by the decision given by the Supreme Court reported as Pirgonda Mongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidronda Patil and others (AIR 1957 SC 363). In the above case, some amendments were sought to be incorporated. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were of the view that the only impediment in the matter of allowing the amendment would be law of limitation. If a right comes to vest in the other side then this right cannot be taken away. It was observed as under:-

"We think that the correct principles were enunciated by Matchelor J. in his judgment in the same case, viz., 33 Bom. 644 at p. 655 (c), when he said at pp. 649, 650 :

"All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy