Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly refusing to try an election petition presented under the District Municipalities Act V of 1920. The petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 were candidates at an election held on 1 5-3-1921 to fill up two vacancies in the Tinnevelly Municipality. The petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate. The respondents 1 and 2 were declared duly elected. Under Rule 1 for the decision of disputes as to the validity of an election held under the Madras District Municipalities Act the petitioner applied within 7 days to the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly for a declaration that the election of respondents 1 and 2 were invalid on various grounds. The Subordinate Judge who at first granted an interim injunction ultimately refused to try the case on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to try the election petition. I must at the outset say that it is very difficult to follow the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge. Rule 1 makes it quite clear that the petition should be presented to the District or Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction . The words having jurisdiction mean having territorial ju