A. J. SADASHIVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS PETITION IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION AFTER NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENTS. WITH THE CONSENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING on BOTH THE SIDES, THE PETITION IS HEARD ON MERITS AND DISPOSED OF by THIS ORDER.

( 2 ) THE PETITIONER IN ELECTION MISCELLANEOUS 6 OF 1994 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF, AT MULBAGAL IS THE REVISION PETITIONER in THIS PETITION. THIS REVISION IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7-6-1994 PASSED BY THE LEARNED MUNSIFF, MULBAGAL DISMISSING the ELECTION PETITION UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE KARNATAKA panchayat RAJ ACT, 1993 (FOR SHORT 'the ACT') FOR NON-COMPLIANCE with SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 15 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED MUNSIFF dismissed THE ELECTION PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THE ground THAT THE ELECTION PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO ATTEST THE COPIES of THE ELECTION PETITION AS TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION.

( 3 ) SRI G. PAPIREDDY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 IN ADDITION TO OBJECTIONS ON MERITS, HAS RAISED a PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AS TO THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE REVISION petition. HE CONTENDS THAT BY VIRTUE OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 20 OF THE ACT, THE DECISION OF THE MUNSIFF BEING MADE FINAL, NO revision LIES TO THIS COURT UNDER SECTION 115, CPC; THE ONLY course OPEN TO THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IS TO INVOKE THE EXTRAORDINARY jurisdiction OF THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF india, AND NOT UNDER THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 115, CPC. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE RELIES ON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT in HALAPPA V THE RETURNING OFFICER AND ANOTHER. PARA 6 OF THE said DECISION READS AS FOLLOWS: "in MY OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE FULL BENCH OF THIS court IN M. M. YARAGATTI V VASANT2, IS A COMPLETE ANSWER TO the OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT no. 2. THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION IS THAT IN CASES WHERE under THE PROVISIONS OF A SPECIAL ENACTMENT A SPECIAL FORUM is CREATED FOR DECIDING DISPUTES ARISING UNDER SUCH enactment AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT FURTHER PROVIDES that DECISION RENDERED BY SUCH A COURT IS FINAL, NO REVISION under SECTION 115 OF THE CPC LIES TO THE HIGH COURT, EVEN if THE SPECIAL FORUM HAPPENS TO BE A COURT SUBORDINATE TO the HIGH COURT. FROM THIS IT FOLLOWS THAT A PARTY AGGRIEVED by THE DECISION RENDERED BY A COURT SUBORDINATE TO THE HIGH court IN EXERCISE OF THE SPECIAL JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON IT under SUCH LAW WOULD BE ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION of THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF india. THAT IS THE POSITION HERE. AN ORDER MADE BY A munsiff IN AN ELECTION PETITION PRESENTED UNDER SECTION 14 of THE ACT IS MADE FINAL BY SECTION 19 OF THE ACT. THE SAID section READS:'19 (2 ). THE DECISION OF THE MUNSIFF SHALL BE FINAL. ' in VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISION, WHICH GIVES FINALITY TO the DECISION OF THE MUNSIFF RENDERED UNDER SECTION 14 OF the ACT, IT IS ONLY THE EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION OF THIS court UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT COULD BE invoked AND NOT ITS ORDINARY JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 115 of THE CPC. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, I ANSWER THE FIRST question IN THE NEGATIVE, AND REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE learned COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 2 THAT THE WRIT PETITION should NOT BE ENTERTAINED. "

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY THE AFORESAID DECISION WAS RENDERED FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF THIS COURT PRONOUNCED IN mm. YARAGATTI V VASANT. THE DECISION OF THE FULL BENCH CAME to BE OVERRULED BY SUPREME COURT, BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION IN upholding THE EARLIER JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER FULL BENCH OF THIS court, IN KRISHNAJI VENKATESH SHIRODKAR V GURUPAD SHIVRAM kavalekar AND OTHERS. THE SUPREME COURT IN SHYAMARAJU hegde V VENKATESHA BHAT AND OTHERS , HAS QUOTED WITH approval, THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN KRISHNAJI's CASE, AND THE same READS AS UNDER:"para 2: THE SHORT QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS appeal IS AS TO WHETHER A REVISION APPLICATION IS maintainable UNDER SECTION 115, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE READ with SECTION 50 (1), KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1961 when A DISTRICT JU

Click Here to Read the rest of this document