DANAGOUDA NINGANGOUDA Vs. BASAPPA FAKEERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a successful candidate at an election to the Taluk Development Board of Kushtagi, was a respondent in an election petition questioning or challenging his election. The petition was presented to the Munsiff at Kustagi under Section 106 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959. The Munsiff dismissed the petition for default of appearance of the election petitioner on the 14th of August, 1969. On the 19th of the same month an application was made for restoration of the petition. It was restored by an order of the Munsiff dated the 2nd day of September, 1969, reading as follows:-

(2.) An appeal to the District Judge, Ralchur, by the present petitioner has also been dismissed.

(3.) The point urged on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Swami is that the Munsif, though a persona designate has the power of dismissing an election petition for default of appearance, but once he does so, he becomes functus officio and has no further power to restore the petition. He relies upon a ruling of the Madras High Court reported in Koti Reddy v. Venkayya, AIR1951 Mad 813 . Mr. V. S. Kulkarni for the respondent (election petitioner) contends that the principles stated by this Court in the case of Chaluvaraju v. N. T. Ramaswamigowda, (1969) 1 Mys LJ 585 while dealing with sub-section (7) of Section 106 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, apply to the case of the Munsiff also acting under Sub-section (2) of the same section, and that therefore, a Munsiff, hearing an election petition under that sub-section has no power to dismiss the petition for default.