JUDGMENT

Mahajan, J. - The contest in the suit which has given rise to this Letters Patent appeal lies between two rival candidates for a seat in the Municipal Committee of Delhi in the election held for the Committee in the year 1940. The plaintiff and the defendant were seeking election from the Maliwara, Election Ward No. 4. The plaintiff, Seth Sat Narain Gurwala, presented two nomination papers Nos. 40 and 80 duly subscribed by the electors and the candidate for the election which was to be held on 11th and 12th March 1940. Mr. E.S. Lewis had been appointed by the Deputy Commissioner as Scrutiny Officer to examine the nomination papers. The plaintiff's papers were rejected by that officer on 2nd March 1940. The plaintiff aggrieved with the order of the Scrutiny Officer presented an election petition to the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Part XIII of the Election Rules framed under the provisions of Section 240, Punjab Municipal Act, but the Deputy Commissioner refused to entertain the petition on the ground that it was not competent.

2. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is dated 23rd April 1910. On 23rd August 1940 the plaintiff instituted the present suit for a declaration to the effect that he had been properly nominated as a candidate for the election as a member of the Delhi Municipal Committee in respect of Maliwara, Elective Ward No. & (Non-Muslim) and that defendant 1 was not a duly elected member of the Committee and was not entitled to function as such. An injunction was also claimed against the defendant restraining him from sitting as a member of the Committee.

3. The defendant raised a preliminary point and that was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear and to deal with the plaintiff's suit. It was pleaded that the right which the plaintiff was seeking to enforce was the creation of a statute and the statute that created the right had also provided a remedy for giving effect to that right or for redressing grievances which may arise from non-enforcement of that right and therefore the jurisdiction of the civil Courts had been impliedly excluded. Three preliminary issues were framed in the case by the Subordinate Judge. Two of them were not of much use and require no consideration at all. It was issue 1 which was material to the decision of the case and that was in these terms: "Whether a civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit?" The Subordinate Judge held that the officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner for scrutinising the nomination papers was the final special tribunal in this matter and his decision excluded the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in dealing with the suit.

4. The Election Rules, notified by the Local Government of Delhi under the provisions of Section 240, Punjab Municipal Act in part viii, provide for the appointment of a Scrutiny Officer and his powers. Rule 3 of this Part is in these terms:

3. The Deputy Commissioner or any Gazetted Officer appointed by him sliall examine every nomination form for the purpose of ascertaining that it ia in order and that the Candidate is duly qualified.

He shall also consider all objections duly made under Rule 2 and shall dispose of them after due enquiry. In each case, he will decide as to the validity of the nomination, and will, should any case arise under Part V, Rule 3(b)(c)(d)(e) and (f), first take the order of the Local Government.

5. The trial Judge held that the decision of the officer appointed under this rule was a final decision and amounted to a decision of a Court of special jurisdiction created by the statute and therefore excluded the jurisdiction of the civil Court. The result was that the plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the trial Judge. The plaintiff went up in appeal to the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge did not uphold the view of the Subordinate Judge as to the construction placed on Rule 3 of Part VIII; on the other hand, he held that the decision of the Subordinate Judge on this poin