Ranawat, J.—Under the Jhalawar Municipal Election Rules, dated the 29th March, 1943, an election was held at Bhawani Mandi on the 3rd of September, 1948, of the members of the Municipal Committee of Bhawani Mandi and Bodhraj and Tribhowan Dayal were declared elected by the Returning Officer the same day. Keshari Prasad, Asabhai and Keshri-mal who were unsuccessful at the election filed their objections under rule 15 of the Jhalawar Municipal Election Rules in the court of the First Class Magistrate, Bhawani Mandi on the 10th September, 1948. The First Class Magistrate, Bhawani Mandi, held certain enquires into the matter. In the mean time, on the 19th of February, 1948, the United State of Rajasthan passed an Ordinance repealing the Jhalawar State Municipal Election Rules of the 20th March, 1943, and applying the U. P. Municipal Act of 1916 as amended upto U.P. Act I of 1945 with certain modifications to the territories of the Rajasthan State.

2. Under the Jhalawar State Municipal Rules, petitions relating to objections against elections were to be heard and decided by the First Class Magistral? having jurisdiction at the place. But under the new Ordinance such petitions were cognisable by the District Judge having jurisdiction in the place. The Magistrate First Class, Bhawani Mandi,before whom the aforesaid application of Keshri Prasad and other was pending, transferred the case to the District Judge, Jhalawar, on the 19th July, 1949. The District Judge having heard the parties made an order on the 10th October, 1949, directing the petitioners to put their pleadings in proper form before the 26th of October, 1949, when the petitioners failed to comply with the directions given by the District Judge, he dismissed the petition. The petitioners have filed this revision petition under section 115 of the C.P.C. against the order of the District Judge, dated the 10th October, 1949, by which the petitioners were directed to put their pleadings in proper form.

3. A preliminary objection was raised by the Counsel on the opposite side that no revision under section 115 lay against an order of the District Judge acting under the provisions of the Municipal Act as a persona designata.

4. Section 22, sub-clause (1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, as adapted to Rajasthan runs as follows:-

"An election petition shall be heard by the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the municipality concerned is situated, unless some other person or tribunal has been appointed by rule in this behalf, and at a place in the district within which such Municipality is situated."

5. It may be pointed out that a District Judge, acting "under the provisions of section 22 of the Municipalities Act, is not a civil court subordinate to the High Court in the meaning of sec. 115 C.P.C. but it is an authority created under the Municipalities Act. The mere fact that the person designated under section 22 happens to be the District Judge does not in any way make his position different. In A.I.R. 1933, Alld., 764, Mukerji and Bernet, JJ. held that "a District Judge hearing an election petition is not a civil court, but a persona designata, even though he has the powers and privileges of a civil court; and hence he is not under the superintendence of the High Court under S. 107, Government of India Act." Similarly in 1946 Bom., 64, it was held that a judge acting under section 15 of the Municipal Boroughs Act is not a court, but a persona designata, and the High Court has therefore no jurisdiction to revise his order under sec. 115 C.P.C. or to correct any mistake committed by him whether he exercises jurisdiction not vested in him, or fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in him, acts with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. In 1931, Bom., 582, A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that where a Judge or a Presiding Officer of a Court as distinguished from the court itself is directed to perform any function of an authority created by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document