The mandatory requirement for security deposit in election petitions is essential and non-compliance leads to dismissal, emphasizing the procedural integrity governed by the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act and its Rules.

JUDGMENT :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. The applicant has preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the First District Judge, Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.), whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Facts of the case, as canvased by the applicant, are that the present revision petition arises out of an election petition filed by respondent No.1, Atmanaryan Patel, challenging the election of the present applicant as the President of the Municipal Council. Respondent No.1 has filed the election petition under Section 20 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 1961”). The applicant was duly elected as the President of the Municipal Council, and this election has been challenged by respondent No.1 before the Additional District Judge, Katghora. However, the applicant submits that the Additional District Judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain the election petition as per the provisions of Section 20 of the Act 1961. Despite this jurisdictional bar, the concerned Court proceeded to entertain the petition. In response to the filing of the election petition, the applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), contending that the election petition was filed in a wrong Court and, therefore, ought to be dismissed at the outset. However, the Additional District Judge dismissed the application filed by applicant by the impugned order dated 04.07.2025. The applicant is aggrieved by this order and has thus preferred the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the Additional District Judge, Katghora, lacks jurisdiction to entertain the election petition. Section 20 of the Act of 1961 explicitly provides the forum for filing election petitions related to Municipal elections. The relevant provisions of Section 20 state that in case of the election of the President, any voter of the Municipal area may challenge the election by filing the election petition before the Court of the District Judge where such election was held, specifically within the revenue district in which the Court of District Judge is situated. In any other case, the election petition must be filed before the Additional District Judge having a permanent seat of his Court within the revenue district where the election or nomination took place. Where there is more than one Additional District Judge in a revenue district, the District Judge must specify which Additional District Judge is empowered to entertain the election petitions. It is submitted that Katghora is not a revenue district but a Tahsil or subdivision within the Revenue District of Korba. Korba alone qualifies as the revenue district with a permanent seat of the District Judge. Therefore, as per the mandatory provisions of Section 20, the election petition challenging the election of the President must be filed before the District Judge of Korba and not before the Additional District Judge at Katghora. Learned counsel for the applicant relies on the judgment of this Court in Taukir Dani vs. Chandagi Ram & Ors. (Civil Revision No. 23/2006), wherein it was held that filing an election petition