( 1 ) THIS special Civil Application arises from an election application filed under section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958

( 2 ) THE village Tundali situate in Mehsana Taluka has a Panchayat constituted under section 9 of the Act and that Panchayat consists of 7 members. The village is divided into 3 wards. Ward No. 1 has two seats out of which one is reserved for Harijans. Ward No. 2 has two seats out of which one is reserved for women and ward No. 3 has 3 seats out of which one is reserved for women. In other wards there are four general seats two seats reserved for women and one seat reserved for Harijans.

( 3 ) ON December 16 1960 a general election was held wherein the petitioner and respondents 1 2 and 4 contested for the two general seats in ward No. 3. Respondents 3 and 5 contested for the seat reserved for women in that ward. Respondents 1 and 2 got 108 votes each while the petitioner and respondent No. 4 got 106 votes each. Respondents 3 and 5 who had contested the seat reserved for women got 104 votes each. Respondents 1 and 2 were declared elected for the two general seats in ward No. 3 but as there was a tie between respondents 3 and 5 a lot was drawn and as a result of the lot respondent No. 3 was declared duly elected. This result was declared on December 18 1960

( 4 ) THE petitioner thereafter filed an application being application No. 36 of 1960 challenging the validity of the election of respondents 1 2 and 3. The application was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mehsana who passed the following endorsement :

( 5 ) PRESENTED personally before me. The application is ordered to be registered. Issue notices to the opponents to show cause. Call for the ballot-boxes and other relevant papers.

( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 5 also filed an application being application No. 37 of 1960 questioning the election of respondents 1 2 and 3. Three other applications were also filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mehsana challenging the election of the other persons declared to have been elected in that election.

( 7 ) IT was contended by respondents 1 2 and 3 that the petitioners application was not maintainable as the application had to be filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and not before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as laid down in section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mehsana upheld the contention and transferred the application to the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) for disposal according to law. While making that order the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) observed that though a Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) was appointed under section 23 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act 1869 to assist the Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) it was clear that under section 24 of that Act the jurisdiction of the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) extended to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature wherein the subject matter did not exceed Rs. 10 0 He further observed that in his opinion even though the Civil Judge (Junior Division) was designated as a Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mehsana he had ordinary jurisdiction and the fact that he could only try and dispose of cases which were transferred to him with a view to assist the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mehsana it would not mean that he had no jurisdiction over other matters which were within his jurisdiction.

( 8 ) THE order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mehsana is erroneous as it is based on an incorrect reading of section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and sections 23 and 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act 1869 Section 15 (1) so far as is relevant provides that if the validity of an election of a member of a Panchayat is brought in question by any person qualified to vote at the election to which such question refers such person may apply in the Saurashtra area of the State and in the pre-reorganisation State of