Court No. - 5 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48793 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4872 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Respondent :- Hanuman Sharan And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Vishal Tripathi,Rama Kant Dixit Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Vishal Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was elected Pradhan of the Village Panchayat - Paidi, Block and Tehsil - Payagpur, District - Bahraich in Panchayat Elections - 2021 held in April - May, 2021, defeating respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 being aggrieved by the result of elections, filed election petition being Case No. 2880 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. T202108150502880), before the Prescribed Authority/Sub District Magistrate, Payagpur, Bahraich, which was rejected by means of order dated 02.02.2023. 3. Against order dated 02.02.2023, respondent no. 1 filed revision before the District Judge, Bahraich which was allowed on 14.05.2024 and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for decision afresh. 4. It is in the remand proceedings that the Prescribed Authority/Sub District Magistrate, Payagpur, Bahraich has again rejected the election petition by means of order dated 28.10.2024, against which revision has been filed before the District Judge, Bahraich. It is in the revisional proceedings that the petitioner had filed his objections under Rule 28 of the General Rules Civil, stating that the reliefs sought in revision are multiple reliefs and for which single revision would not be maintainable. 5. For the sake of convenience prayer made in the revision is quoted herein below :- Þvr% Jheku th ls vuqjks/k gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns”k fnukad 28-10- 2024 fujLr djds fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk izLrqr ;kfpdk Lohdkj djrs gq, jsLikUMsUV la0 1 }kjk izLrqr ukekadu i= dks mfYyf[kr rF;ksa ds izdk”k esa voS/k ekurs gq, fujLr djus dh d`ik dh tkosA QyLo:i fuxjkuhdrkZ dks ek= ,d mEehnokj gksus dh fLFkfr esa fuokZfpr iz/kku ?kksf’kr fd;k tkos o erx.kuk esa O;kid /kka/kyh ,oa gsjkQsjh ds 1 QyLo:i xyr ?kksf’kr fuokZpu ifj.kke dks fujLr djds iquZerx.kuk djk;s tkus gsrq mfpr vkns’k nsus dh d`ik dh tkos ftlls mfpr U;k; izkIr gks tk;sAß 6. Application of the petitioner has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 19.07.2025, after stating that in the revision it is always open for the aggrieved person to make multiple prayers and it is discretion of the Court, while allowing the petition to allow or disallow any particular relief sought for and accordingly, such multiple reliefs are not hit by Rule 28 of the General Rules Civil. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the revision private respondent has made prayer for allowing the revision and setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 28.10.2024 and also prayed that he would be declared elected and also prayer has been for re-counting. It is submitted that prayers are distinct and separate and consequently, separate revisions should have been filed by the private respondent no. 1. 8. This Court has perused the impugned order as well as revision preferred by the private respondent. 9. This Court do not find any infirmity where prayers in alternative had been prayed for in the election petition or in the revision assailing order of the competent authority. Revision was filed with prayer for setting aside order dated 28.10.2024 by which the election petition was rejected. 10. The revisionist has prayed that in case his revision is allowed and consequentially election petition is also allowed, then he may be declared as returned candidate. This Court do not find any infirmity in the said prayer as there is casual connection in the relief prayed and order which has been assailed by the private respondent. Further there were allegations that there has been manipulation in the election result for which he has also sought relief of re-counting. The said prayer would also dependent upon the facts stated in the election petition and in any view of the matter the grounds on which the election petition can be fled, have been stated in Section 12(c) of the Panchayati Raj Act which enables aggrieved person to file election petition. 11. Rule 28 of the General Rules Civil only provides that separate applications shall be made only with regard to distinct subject matters. Accordingly, undoubtedly for particular cause of action single petition or application is maintainable. This Court finds that application of the 2 petitioner under Rule 28 of the General Rules Civil was thoroughly misconceived. In case election petition is rejected, an aggrieved person has right to challenge the same before the revisional authority and to press the prayer made by him before the trial Court. It is discretion of the revisional Court to allow or disallow any relief prayed by him considering the grounds raised by him and material available on record. 12. Accordingly, from perusal of relief clause this Court finds that all the reliefs emanating from the challenge made to the election do not fall in the category of separate and distinct matter. 13. In view of above, this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) 3 Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench