R.S.Garg, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. In an election petition filed u/s. 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) respondent No. 5/election petitioner joined certain persons as party, inter alia, pleading that as the respondent Nos. 6 to 15 had also contested the Election, they were necessary party. Subsequent to clause of the evidence of the parties the election petitioner filed an application for deletion of respondent Nos. 6 to 15 from array of defendants. The said application was allowed by the learned Munsif acting as Election Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petitioner (returned, candidate) has come to this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the said order.

3. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the plaintiff being Dominus-litis cannot be asked to joint parties and if he had joined certain parties and at this stage he wants to delete certain persons from array of defendants, he cannot be compelled to continue with the said parties. He further submits that in accordance with the Rule 111 of Bihar Panchayat Nirwachan Rules, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) the competent Court hearing election petition would be governed by the procedure under Civil Procedure Code, the writ petition is not maintainable and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file civil revision u/s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the relief claimed by the election petitioner in the said election petition respondent Nos. 6 to 15 were necessary parties and absence of those persons, a proper adjudication cannot be arrived at. Therefore, the order passed by the Munsif is bad is in law, Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, he submits that only the procedure as provided in the Civil Procedure Code for trial of the suit is applicable therefore, civil revision to challenge the order passed by the Munsif shall not be maintainable. He submits that the election petitioner cannot be allowed to delted respondent Nos. 6 to 15.

5. I have heard the parties at length. sec. 140 of the Act provides that the election to the office of Panchayat or a Gram Cutchery shall not be called in question except by election petition as prescribed. The proviso to sec. 140 of the Act is not material at this stage, therefore, the same is not being referred to. From the very perusal of sec. 140 of the Act, it would clearly appear that the election to any office shall be called in question by an election petitioner. An election petition is not a substitute of a title or a civil suit but it maintains its character of an election petition as provided under sec. 140 or the Act. Rule 108 read with Rule 111 of Rules provide that an election petition is to be filed within 30 days from the date of declaration of the results and such a petition is to be tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. When certain procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure is applied to trial of an election petition, such trial does not become a Title Suit nor is subject to an appeal or revision. An election petition continues to be an election petition and the Munsif, in fact, acts as Election Tribunal though he is otherwise a Civil Court under the Civil Courts Act. Application of procedure as provided in the Civil Procedure Code would not make such an election petition a Title Suit and the final order to be passed by the Election Tribunal/Munsif shall not become a decree or an order which is subject to revision or appeal.

7. sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that when a Civil Court passed an order deciding an issue or when there is a case decided then the High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction may look into the correctness, validity and propriety of the o