K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.

1. This CRP is filed by the 1st counter petitioner in O.P. (Election) 3/2000 on the file of the II Addl. Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the order dated 18.1.2001 in I.A. No. 10870/2000.

2. The above O.P. is filed by the respondent-petitioner challenging the election of the revision petitioner from Ward No. 15 (Kariyam Constituency) of Sreekariyam Grama Panchayat. The revision petitioner filed the above I.A. to consider the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the O.P. alleging that the O.P. is not maintainable since it is filed in violation of the mandatory provisions of S.89(1) & (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 in so far as the copy of the election petition served upon the revision petitioner is not attested as true copy by the respondent in page Nos.1 to 4 of the petition and therefore, the O.P. is liable to be dismissed in limine.

3. The respondent has contended that there is no violation of S.89(1) & (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the O.P. is filed in strict compliance of the provisions of the Act. The respondent has also contended that it is not necessary to attest every page of the copy of the election petition by the petitioner and it is sufficient if the petitioner attested the last page of the petition. The lower court found that the non-attestation on all pages in the O.P. by the petitioner therein is not fatal and it is sufficient if the petitioner attested at the foot of the petition and therefore, held that the election O.P. is maintainable. Accordingly, the lower court dismissed the I.A. Hence this revision is preferred by the petitioner before this Court.

4. The counsel for the respondent relying upon the decision in Leela v. Pushpam (1996 (2) KLT 350) submitted that the orders passed by the Munsiff's Court while hearing an election petition under the Panchayat Raj Act are not revisable under S.115 of the CPC since the Munsiff's Court was functioning as persona designata and not a court under the CPC and therefore, the above revision challenging the order passed by the Munsiff's Court in the above election petition is not maintainable before this Court.

5. But in a subsequent decision in Sushama v. Mercy Antony (1999 (3) KLT 818) a Division Bench of this Court has held that a revision under S.115 of the CPC is maintainable against the orders passed by the subordinate Courts exercising jurisdiction conferred under the Panchayat Raj Act.

6. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the above decision of the Division Bench of this Court is not applicable to the facts of this case since the question that arose before the Division Bench was whether a revision under S.115 of the CPC is maintainable before this Court against the order passed by the appellate authority viz. the District Court on appeals filed under S.113 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or under S.189 of the Municipalities Act, 1994 and the question involved in this case is whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain a revision under S.115 of the CPC against the order passed by the Munsiff's Court considering the election petition under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

7. The above submission made by the counsel for the respondent is of no force. If the law is applicable to the appellate authority functioning under special statute or under general law, the same law is applicable to the subordinate authority functioning under the same provisions of law. Therefore it is clear that the above order passed by the Munsiff's Court regarding the maintainability of the election petition is revisable by this Court under S.115 of the CPC. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondent against the maintainability of the revision petition is overruled.

8. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the above election petition is not sustainable in view of the violation of the mandatory provision of S.89(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and therefore the same i