VIJAYA Vs. MAHAMMAD BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order, in an Election Misc. No. 12/2008, dated 9.4.2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), K.G.F. Appellant was the Respondent No.1, respondent No.1 was a petitioner and respondents No.2 to 7 were the respondents before the learned Civil Judge.

(2.) This case arises under a peculiar circumstances. Respondent No.l was an unsuccessful candidate in an election held for Ward No.34, City Municipal Council, K.G.F. He filed a election petition under Sections 21 and 23 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), K.G.F. Section 21 of the Act requires that the petition to be filed within 15 days from the date of declaration of results of the election. The results of the election were declared on 30.9.2007, however, the election petition was filed on 31.10.2007. Since the election petition was filed with 16 days delay, 1st respondent had filed an application for condonation of delay before the Civil Judge (Junior Division). When the 1st respondent noticed that the election petition is not maintainable before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), he filed an application under Order 7, Rules 10 and 10A of CPC. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) by his order dated 5.7.2008 ordered for return of the petition copy and the document thereon to the 1st respondent to present the same before the proper Court on 10.7.2008. To this effect, the plaint was returned on 5.7.2008 with specific endorsement as regard to the return and also as regard to filing of the same before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division). In consonance with the said order, the plaint returned was presented before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divisions) within the stipulated time. Same was numbered as Election Misc. 12/2008.

(3.) Successful candidate, the appellant herein filed his objections to the main election petition. Parties also led the evidence and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) by considering the evidence on record, by the judgment impugned in this appeal set aside the election of the petitioner on the ground that, the petitioner does not come under the reserve category (Christianity Religion). As against the said order this appeal has been filed.