K.K. Usha, J.

The question that has been referred for consideration of this Bench is whether Civil Revision Petitions are maintainable against orders passed by the appellate court in Election Petitions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. A learned judge of this Court, mSaraswati v. Kamala, 1997 (1) KLT 855, has taken the view that a revision petition under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable from the decision of the District Court in an appeal filed under S.113 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act against an order passed by the Munsiff s Court in the Election Petition.

C.R.P. Nos. 227/98, 619/98, 843/98,1190/97,1942/97 & 815/98 arise out of orders passed by the District Court in appeals from orders of the Munsiff s Court in Election Petitions filed under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. Petitioner in C.R.P. 1942/97 originally filed O.P. 6074/97 challenging the very same appellate order, but, apprehending that an Original Petition may not be maintainable, later, he filed the revision petition. C.R.P.Nos.756/98,1910/97,2233/97,1263/97,1864/98&2243/98 are petitions filed challenging the orders passed by the District Court in appeals against orders passed by the Munsiff's Court in Election Petitions filed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. A learned Single Judge, before whom C.R.P. Nos. 619/98,227/98,843/98,756/98,1910/97 & 2233/97 came up for hearing referred the matter under a common order dated 14.7.1998 for consideration of the question of maintainability of the revision petition under S.115 of C.P.C. by aLarger Bench. Learned Single Judge doubted the correctness of the decision reported in 1997 (1) KLT 855 supra and took the view that the decision requires reconsideration. In the reference order, the learned judge has referred to another decision of this Court in Leelav. Pushpam, 1996 (2) KLT 350. The question which arose in that case was whether Civil Revision Petitions are maintainable against interim orders passed in Election Petitions filed under S.87 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The learned Single Judge took the view that the Munsiff s Court, while deciding the case under Ss.87 and 88 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is not acting as a civil court and therefore no revision will lie under S.115 of Code of Civil Procedure from the interim orders passed in Election Petitions from which no appeal is provided under the act. referance was also made to several provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 and also the relevant constitutional provisions, in the reference order. It is under these circumstances, the question regarding maintainability of these revision petitions under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging appellate orders in Election Petitions filed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 came up for consideration before this Bench. Since the question referred is only a question of law, we are not referring to the factual details in any one of the cases.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision-petitioners, except in C.R.P. 2243/98 contended for the position that Civil Revision Petition is maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P. 224 3/98 contended that the petitioner was compelled to file the revision petition only for the reason that the Original Petition filed by him as O.P. 7077/97 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by judgment dated. 9.10.1998 holding that the Original Petition is not maintainable. It was pursuant thereto, he filed the revision petition. Learned counsel submits that still the revision petitioner would like to contend that the remedy is not under S.115 of the C.P.C., but an Original Petition under Arts.226 & 227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the respondents in all other revision petitions, supported the above contention.

4. O.P. 7077/97 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge hold