A PRAKASAM Vs. POONAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition is filed against an order in i. A. No. 16 of 1995 in Election O. P. No. 1 of 1986.

(2.) THE civil revision petitioner is the first respondent in O. P. and the respondent in the civil revision petition is the petitioner in election O. P. No. 1 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court , Arni. THE parties are referred to herein as shown in the civil revision petition. THE respondent filed a petition in Election O. P, No. l of 1986 challenging the election of the civil revision petitioner, on the ground that the civil revision petitioner is not a hindu and by a false representation that he belonged to Adi Dravida Community, he filed a declaration before the Electoral Officer stating that he belonged to hindu Adi Dravida Community, though he was a christian. THE election was held for election of a councillor for Ward No. 12, which is a reserved constituency for Adi Dravida Community. THE election for Ward No. 12, Arni Municipality was held on 24. 2. 1986 and the civil revision petitioner was elected as the councillor in the said election. THE respondent, therefore, prayed that the election of the civil revision petitioner as councillor should be set aside and for a consequential declaration that the respondent was the duly elected councillor in the said election. During the pendency of the Election O. P. the respondent filed an application in I. A. No. 44 of 1986 with the prayer that the court should summon certain documents relating to the civil revision petitioner and that application was ordered by the trial Judge by an order dated 11. 11. 1986. THEre was another interim application in I. A. No. 45 of 1986, wherein the respondent has requested that certain other documents relating to the birth Register should be summoned. That petition was also ordered by the lower court. Against the orders passed in I. A. Nos. 44 and 45 of 1986, the civil revision petitioner has filed earlier C. R. P. Nos. 129 and 130 of 1987 and this court has ordered interim stay of the further proceedings in O. P. No. l of 1986. In 1991, the term of the Municipal Councillor came into an end and the civil revision petitioner served the full term as a councillor in the said municipality. Hence, in the year 1994 when the Civil Revision Petition Nos. 129 and 130 of 1987 came up for hearing before this Court, on the basis of the representation made by the counsel for the civil revision petitioner, that, the petitions have become infructuous, this Court had dismissed the C. R. P. Nos. 129 and 130 of 1987 by an order dated 23. 6. 1994. THE civil revision petitioner then filed an application under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial Judge on the ground that his term as a Councillor has already expired and the Municipality is functioning without any Municipal Commissioner. According, to the civil revision petitioner, the election petition has thus become infructuous and hence, any further enquiry with reference to the Election O. P no. l of 1986 would be futile and academic in nature and hence he prayed that the main election petition should be dismissed as infructuous. THE lower court held that it would be open to consider the question whether the main Election petition O. P. No. l of 1986 has become infructuous or not at the time of trial of the Election O. P. No. l of 1986. THE lower court therefore, held that the interim application filed by the civil revision petitioner to dismiss the election petition is not sustainable in law. It, therefore, held that till the main election petition is taken up for trial, it is not possible to dismiss the election O. P. No. 1 of 1986 even on the basis of an interim application. In this view of the matter, the lower court rejected the application filed by the civil revision petitioner.