If during the trial of an election petition it appears that there is an equality of votes between any candidates at the election or [nomination] and that an addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be declared elected or [nominated], then the Judge shall decide between them by lot and proceed as if the one on whom the lot fell had received an additional vote.
26. Finality of decision.---
(1) No appeal shall lie against the decision of the Judge on the petition.
(2) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Judge on the petition may, within thirty days from the date of such decision, apply to the High Court for revision on any of the following grounds:-
(a) that the decision is contrary of law;
(b) that the Judge has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law, but subject to such orders as the High Court may pass thereon, such decision shall be final.
COMMENT Scope.--Under Section 26 of the Act, revision against the impugned order is limited to the extent to see the legality of the decision being not contrary to law. The jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 20 of the Act was vested with the Court below and on facts and The Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 13 circumstances the finding recorded vide impugned order is not contrary to law. [Indrajeet Singh v.Jagdish Prasad, 2003 (3) MPHT 460 at 463 (MP) (Jabalpur Bench).]