Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”) is preferred by the applicant-revisionist aggrieved by the order dated 07 January 2014 passed by the District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in Election Petition No. 387 of 2012, whereby the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 3 to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 4.

2. The brief facts are; the present proceeding arose out of a Election Petition No. 387 of 2012 filed by respondent No. 1 herein challenging the election of the applicant/revisionist under Section 20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act No. II of 1916).

3. The Nagar Palika is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 (U.P. Act No. II of 1916). The revisionist was elected as a Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli, Muzaffar Nagar. The respondent No. 1-Izhar Ahmad filed an election petition under Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. II of 1916 challenging his election on 30 July 2012. From the record it transpires that the revisionist/applicant filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which was rejected by the election tribunal/Court below. The revisionist preferred Writ Petition No. 20439 of 2013, which was dismissed on 12.4.2013. Dissatisfied with the said order revisionist preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17104 of 2013, which came to be dismissed on 10 May 2013. But the Supreme Court observed that the revisionist shall be at liberty to raise all the issues before the trial Court, which shall be treated as preliminary issues. In the meantime the respondent No. 1 preferred Writ Petition No. 169 of 2014 for a direction upon the election tribunal to decide the election petition expeditiously. This Court on 22 January 2014 passed an order granting the liberty to respondent No. 1 to make appropriate application to the Court concerned, who will consider the same and shall make all endeavours to decide it expeditiously by fixing short and quick dates.

4. On 8.11.2013 the respondent No. 1 moved an application for transfer of the election petition to some other Court. The said application was registered as transfer application No. 482 of 2013. The ground taken in the transfer application was that the election petition is pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3. The said Court is overburdened with huge number of criminal cases in respect of crimes against women. It was also mentioned that since the term of the office of the Chairman is only five years and there was a direction of this Court for expeditious disposal of the election petition, therefore, it was stated that the election petition may be transferred to some other Court.

5. An objection was filed to the said transfer application. After considering the objection of the revisionist the Court below has allowed the transfer application and has transferred it from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 3.

6. At the outset Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present civil revision under Section 115 of CPC against the order passed under Section 43-BB of the U.P. Act No. II of 1916.

7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that where a remedy of an appeal has not been provided against the order passed by the District Judge, the remedy available would be to file a Civil Revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC. He further urged that a notice under Rule 89 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 (for short, “the Rules, 1957”) to the opposite party was mandatory.

8. It was further submitted that the transferee Court has not recorded any satisfaction that opposite party had the knowledge of the order. It is contended that the Rules, 1959 are applicable in the election proceedings before the District Judg