Honble JOSHI, J.–This revision has been directed under Sec. 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 29.5.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Merta in Election Petition No. 16/2000, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC was rejected. Another application filed by the revisionist-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also rejected by the same order. However, the order rejecting the application under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC has been challenged before this Court.

(2). Notices were issued to the non-petitioners. The notices were served on the non-petitioners No. 1 2, 4 and 5. Mr. J.R. Patel appeared on behalf of non-petitioners no. 1 and 2. Non-petitioner No. 3 was not served, but a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. J.R. Patel about the maintainability of the revision petition, therefore, no notice was issued to the non-petitioner No. 3.

(3). Heard learned counsel for the parties nd perused the recorded. It was argued by Mr. J.R. Patel, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 and 2 that the order has been passed by the Election Tribunal and no revision lies against the said order u/Sec. 115 C.P.C. as the Tribunal is not subordinate to the High Court and its order cannot be revised under revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In support of his argument, he relied upon the following decisions of this Court:-

(1) Smt. Manju Sharma vs. Suji Sharma & Anr. (1)

(2) Smt. Indira vs. Smt. Prabha (2)

(4). Per contra, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petition may be treated as writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. In support of his argument, he has relief on the Full Bench decision of this Court given in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan Das & Anr. (3).

(5). Controverting the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the non-petitioner no. 1 and 2 relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vishesh Kumar vs. Shanti Prasad (4), argued that no revision can be treated as a writ and therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

(6). Under Section 115 C.P.C., this Court may call of the recorded of any case, which has been decided by any Court subordinate to this Court. Section 3 of C.P.C. defines the subordination of the Court, which is as under:-

``3. Subordination of Courts.- For the purposes of this Code, the District Court is subordinate to the High Court, and every Civil Court of a grade inferior to that of District Court any every Court of Small Causes is subordinate to the High Court and District Court.

(7). It has been held in G.N. Verma vs. hargovind Dayal (5), that a persona designata is a person selected to act in his capacity, as a Judge. He is a person pointed out or described as an individual as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class, or as filling a particular character.

(8). It has been held in Ram Milan vs. Bansilal Tejsingh & Anr. (6), that a persona designata is a person pointed out or described as an individual, as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class, or as filling a particular character.

(9). ``A persona designata has been defined in Legal Glossary published by Law and Justice Department o the Central Government to be a person pointed out or described as an individual, as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class, or as filling a particular character.

(10). It has been held in Union of India & Ors. vs. Girdhari Lal & Etc. (7), that the District Judge appointed by Chief Justice to discharge judicial function under sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 11 of the Artibtration Act is a persona designata and it does not come under the definition of Court and the orders passed by him are not revisable by High Court under its revisional jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge in this respect considered the definition of ``Court in Sec. 2(1) (c) of the new Arbitration Act and also considered the other relevant provisions of the Act.

(11). It has bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document