BHANUMATHI Vs. EAPPEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil revision petition Mr. M. M. Abdul Kader, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order of the learned Munsiff of Parur dated 25th October 1965, accepting the claim, made by the 1st respondent herein in Election Petition 1 of 1964. This revision petition has been filed under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. M. C. Sen learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, that the revision petition is incompetent. INasmuch as I am accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, I will only refer to the essential facts, which are necessary for the purpose of understanding as to how exactly Election Petition 1 of 1964 happened to be filed and the nature of the relief granted by the authority as well as the attack that is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as against that order.

(2.) THE 1st respondent to this revision petition, who was an elected member of the Panchayat in question, filed an application under S.22 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (Act 32 of 1960), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, for declaring that the election of the revision petitioner is irregular and improper, and that the rejection of the nomination of the 2nd respondent herein is also irregular. According to the 1st respondent, the nomination of the 2nd respondent ought not to have been rejected. Ultimately the Ist respondent asked for a declaration that the election of the revision petitioner is irregular and improper and that it has to be set aside. That application was made to the Munsiff of Parur; and the Munsiff, by his order dated 25th October 1965, has ultimately allowed the application filed by the 1st respondent, and declared the election of the revision petitioner as void. THE Munsiff has further declared the 2nd respondent herein as a member of the Panchayat in question. It is the said order of the Munsiff, that is under attack in this revision, on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) SUB-sections (5) and (6) of S.22 of the Act are, in my opinion, fairly important, and they are as follows.