ORDER :

1.The present petition under Article 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure- P/17) passed in Election Petition No.1022 by the 1^st Additional District Judge, Sidhi.

2. Heard on I.A. No.21733/2025 which is an application for dismissal of the instant revision for non-compliance of Rule 19(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipality (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1962’ for the sake of brevity). The application has been submitted by the respondent taking exception to filing of the present revision petition as it is not filed in compliance of the Rule 19(2) of the Rules, 1962. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962 is reproduced herein under :-

“19. Revision.- (1) No petition by way of revision shall lie against any interlocutory order passed by the Judge.

(2) At the time of presentation of the petition for revision under sub-section(2) of section 26 against the decision of Judge, the petitioner shall deposit with the High Court a sum of Rs.250/- as security for the costs of the revision. If the provisions of this rule are not complied with the High Court shall dismiss the petition.”

Rule (2) provides that at the time of presentation, the petitioner shall deposit with the High Court a sum of Rs.250/- as security for the cost of the revision. It is the case of the petitioner that as the petitioner has not deposited the said amount at the time of presentation, the petition is required to be dismissed as the rule is mandatory which says that any non-compliance shall lead the High Court to dismiss the petition.

3. Attention of the Court has been invited to the documents attached with the petition at page-104 to show that such deposit was done on the date of filing but after the presentation. It is submitted that the receipt of deposit contains the number of the case i.e, C.R. 1110/2025, which is the present case number and as per the High Court Rules the number is generated as soon as the presentation is made by the litigant or the counsel, for which reliance has been placed on Rule 2 of Chapter-11 of the Madhya Pradesh of High Court Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2008’ for the sake of brevity). As per sub-rule (3), the Presenting Assistant as soon as enters the class of the case in the computer, it generates an institution number and a 10 digit unique case number. Rule 4 prescribes that after such generation of the number and doing the clerical work, he will pass on the file of main case to the scrutiny assistant. Rule 5 provides that after receipt and registration of the main case, the scrutiny assistant will scrutinized the case for defects, count the value of Court fees stamps affixed on memo of appeal, petition, or application interlocutory application, affidavit, vakalatnama and document separately and enter the same in prescribed seal to be affixed on the reverse side of the first page of the memo of appeal, application or petition. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 provides that he will prepare a list of all cases which are found to be defective in any respect by 1.30 p.m. and display the same on the Notice Board of the section at 2.15 p.m. After passing through the scrutiny, the case is sent for entry to the entry assistant and Rule 8 provides that the entry assistant will make entry in the computer in regard to the description of parties, computer category code, particulars of the Court fees, section and provision of law, whether the case is cognizable by the division bench or a single bench and after making the entries mentioned in Rule 8 a defect free main case shall be posted on the question of admission before the Court on the nearest available date by the entry assistant.

4. It is further submitted that this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Soni vs. Ashok Kumar and Ors. reported in 2015 (2) MPLJ 166 has held that while filing revision petition under Section 26(