S.K. MAL LODHA, J—This is a revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the Munsif, Churu dated March 30, 1978 passed in Election Petition No 7 of 1978 by which he accorded permission for amendment of the election petition to the non-petitioner.

2. A few facts deserve recall here. The non-petitioner filed an election petition under rule 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") on March 15, 1978 praying therein that the election of the petitioner declared illegal and the non petitioner be declared as duly elected Sarpanch to the Gram Panchayat Khinwasar, Tehsil Churu. The non-petitioner moved an application under order VI, rule 17 CPC on March 27, 1978 stating that he may be allowed to amend the election petition by making necessary amendments. It was also mentioned that up to that stage notice to the petitioner has not been issued. The learned Munsif by his order dated March 30, 1978 accepted the application under order VI, rule 17, C. P. C. and ordered that since notice has not been sent to the petitioner so far, now notice be issued and the amended election petition be sent with it.

3. Being aggrieved by the order dated March 30, 1978, the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

4. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. R.N. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the non-petitioner, that the revision application against the order dated 30.3.78 is not maintainable because the Munsif while trying an election petition under rule 78 of the Rules is not a court subordinate to the High Court and, therefore, his orders cannot be revised under Section 115 C.P.C. Mr R.N. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has placed reliance on Keshri Prasad vs. Bodhraj(l) and Keshav Dev vs. Radhey Shyam (2). Mr. K.N. Joshi. learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the preliminary objection, argued that the Munsif, while trying an election petition under rule 78 of the Rules, is not a persona designata and, therefore, his orders are revisable. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to Bhonwri Singh vs. Dy. C.M.E. Loco Shops, Western Railway, Ajmer(3), Central Talkies Ltd., Kanpur vs. Dwarka Prasad (4), Sheo Shankar Choubey vs. The Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board (5), Rameshwar Lal vs. Jogendra Das (6), Surendra Mohan vs. Dharam Chand Abrol(7), Badrinath Gupta vs. Estates Officer (Controller of Aerodromes)(8) and Thakur Das (dead) by LRs., vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (9)

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I may read the relevant portion of rule 78, which is as under:—

"78. Manner of challenging an election or co-option under Rules:—The election or co-option of any person as the Panch of a Panchayat or the election of any person as the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch of a Panchayat or as the member or Chairman of a Nyaya Panchayat may be called in question by presenting a petition to the Munsif, or, where there is no Munsif, to the Civil Judge, within whose jurisdiction the place of Headquarters of the Panchayat or the Nyaya Panchayat, as the case may be, is situated, within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election or co-option is declared, on any one or more of the following grounds."

Rule 79 of the Rules provides as to who can present election petition. Rule 83 of the Rules deals with the procedure for hearing of an election petition. The material portion of this rule for the present purpose is as under:-

"83. Hearing of petition:—The procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, (Central Act V of 1908), in regard to suits, shall, in so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in the hearing of the petition:

Provided that—

(a).........

(b) the Munsif or the Civil Judge, as the case may be, shall not be required to record evidence in full but shall only make a memorandum thereof sufficient in his opinion for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document