1. The election of Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Korba and Councillors of all the wards of Municipal Corporation, Korba including Ward No.7 was held on 29-12-2014. The petitioner herein/returned candidate and respondent No.4 herein/the election petitioner also contested the election for the post of Councillor from Ward No.7, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman). The petitioner was declared elected on 4-1-2015 against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman).

2. The election petitioner/respondent No.4 herein in order to question the election of the returned candidate/petitioner herein filed election petition under Section 441 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956'), stating inter alia that Ward No.7 is reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman) and the returned candidate/petitioner herein does not belong to Scheduled Caste and on the basis of forged provisional caste certificate, her nomination was accepted and she was declared elected, and therefore, her election from Ward No.7 as Councillor be declared void and the election petitioner be declared elected as Councillor from Ward No.7 of Municipal Corporation, Korba. Issues were framed on 26-11-2015, thereafter, the returned candidate filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stating inter alia that the returned candidate/petitioner has won the election by submitting forged caste certificate and verification of caste can be done only by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013') and therefore, the election petition as framed and filed is barred by law and the election petition be dismissed as not maintainable.

3. The election petitioner filed her reply opposing the said application stating inter alia that the same has been filed to stall the hearing of the election petition and the election petition as framed and filed under Section 441 of the Act of 1956 is maintainable in law and as such, the said application deserves to be dismissed.

4. The Election Tribunal (District Judge, Korba) by its impugned order rejected the said application finding no merit in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

5. Feeling aggrieved against the order rejecting her application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the returned candidate/petitioner herein has filed this revision under Section 441-F of the Act of 1956 read with Section 115 of the CPC stating inter alia that the order passed by the Election Tribunal rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is unsustainable, as the same suffers from jurisdictional error and order impugned deserves to be set-aside.

6. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the returned candidate/ petitioner herein, would submit that jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to hear the matter relating to verification of social status certificate is barred by Section 16 of the Act of 2013 which clearly provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain, to continue or to decide any suit or proceeding or shall pass any decree or order or execute wholly or partly any decree or order, if the claim involved in such suit or proceeding, or the passing of such decree or order or such execution would, in any way, be contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2013. He would further submit that such a legal position has been recognized by a decision of this Court in the matter of Rajkumari v. State of C.G. & others, 2008(2) C.G.L.J. 45 whereby the election of Sarpanch was set aside by the designated officer {Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)} and caste certificate of the returned candidate/Sarpanch was held to be bad and in the writ petition filed by the returned candidate/Sarpanch, this Court relying upon the judgm