Anil Kumar vs Chandra Bhushan Singh and Others

Mihir Kr. Jha, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, this civil revision application directed against an interlocutory order in an election petition arising out of Bihar Gram Panchayat Act is not maintainable as was held by this Court in the case of Md. Zakir Hussain Vs. Hareshwar Prasad Singh and Others, .

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the aforementioned case of Md. Zakir Hussain (supra), this Court had actually held that civil revision application will not be maintainable only against a final order passed by the Election Tribunal, the Court of Munsiff and that an interlocutory order passed in course of such election petition could still be assailed in civil revision application u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This Court is not in a position to accept such submission inasmuch as the scope of Section 115 C.P.C. vis-a-vis the jurisdiction exercised by the Election Tribunal, the Court of Munsiff under Gram Panchayat Act was gone into at a great length by this Court in the aforementioned case of Md. Zakir Hussain (supra) wherein it was held that:-

"7. Section 115 of the CPC provides that when a civil court passes an order deciding an issue or when there is a case decided then the High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction may look into the question of jurisdiction, i.e., whether the court had jurisdiction to pass the order or it has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law.

in an election petition the provision of Section 115 of the C.P.C. would not apply for the simple reason because the Munsif does not act as civil court, but in fact, as Election Tribunal. An Election Tribunal is altogether different entity than a civil court. A civil court while discharging the function delivers judgments which are subject to appeal as provided in the CPC or as provided in the statute governing the rights of the parties but in an election petition the Tribunal delivers a final order which is final subject to appeal etc. as provided under the statute. In any case an order passed by election tribunal cannot be equated with an order passed by civil court making it subject to appeal or revision under C.P.C. The Election Tribunal cannot be equated with civil court."

That being so, this Court must hold that the office note pointing out the maintainability of this civil revision application was correct and consequently, must hold that this civil revision application is not maintainable.

At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application in order to avail a proper remedy in accordance with law. Accordingly, this civil revision application is permitted to withdrawn.