ORDER :

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Churu in Civil Original No.02/2020 whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as preferred by the defendant has been rejected and it has been held that the Court did have jurisdiction to try/hear the election petition in terms of Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994').

2. The facts of the case are that respondent no.1 Tarachand preferred an election petition before the District Judge, Churu challenging the election of petitioner Kishan Singh as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Indrapura, Tehsil and District Churu. After the election petition being registered, the same was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Churu. In the said petition, an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was preferred by defendant Kishan Singh with the submission that in terms of Section 43 of the Act of 1994, the Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the election petition as the Senior Civil Judge is not the authority to whom the petition could have been transferred in terms of Section 43 of the Act of 1994. The said application as preferred by the defendant was rejected by the Court with a finding that the said Court also had the powers of a Civil Judge and therefore, it did have the jurisdiction to try the election petition. Against the said order, the present revision petition has been preferred.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent regarding the maintainability of the present revision petition on the ground that the order impugned has been passed by an authority acting as "Persona Designata" and therefore, is not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and hence, is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. Learned senior counsel submitted that the order impugned being passed in an election petition by the officer/authority acting as a persona designata, the only remedy would be a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel relied upon the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14776/2016; Babita Vs. Nihaldei & Others (decided on 06.12.2016) and S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.145/2015; Mamta Vs. Santosh & Ors. (decided on 01.03.2016).

4. In response to the preliminary objection, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly, the order impugned was not passed by an officer acting as persona designata, as the Senior Civil Judge is not an officer authorized under Section 43 of the Act of 1994. Secondly, rather it is the ground of the petitioner that the present petition could not have been transferred to the Senior Civil Judge as the Senior Civil Judge was not the authority empowered in terms of Section 43 of the Act of 1994. Therefore, once it is held that the Senior Civil Judge did not pass the order impugned acting as a persona designata, the ground as raised by learned Senior counsel would even otherwise not survive.

5. The ground in the present petition as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Section 43 of the Act of 1994, there are three authorities designated who have the power to hear an election petition. The said authorities are the District Judge, Civil Judge and Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). Admittedly, in the present matter, the petition was transferred to the Senior Civil Judge who is not the authority authorized under Section 43 of the Act of 1994 and therefore, the Court could not have the jurisdiction to hear the election petition. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments passed in Council of Architecture Vs. Mukesh Goyal and Others; AIR 2020 SC 1736 and Keshav Dev Vs. Radhey Shyam; 1964 RLW 1. Learned cou