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 Hig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document