K MEENAKSHISUNDARAM Vs. S R RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is the second of its kind arising in the same proceedings, i.e., election petition, O. P. No. 10 of 1959, on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, acting as Election Tribunal. The first of the petitions, C. R. P. No. 1378 of 1959, was filed under S. 115 C.P.C. and since it was understood that such a petition would not lie, that petition has been substituted by the present petition. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider any point arising out of the earlier petition.

(2.) The present petition under consideration is one which seeks to set aside the order of the learned Election Tribunal in I. A. No. 253 of 1959 in the said O. P. No. 10 of 1959. The facts relevant to this petition are that the present petitioner, who is respondent in the said O. P., is the candidate declared elected in a municipal election for ward VII of Kumbakonam municipality. The respondent in this civil revision petition who was defeated by about 33 votes in the said election, has preferred an election petition to set aside the election of the petitioner in the civil revision petition on the ground that he resorted to various corrupt practices set out in the election petition. In the course of the pendency of the original petition before the tribunal, the respondent before me took out an application under O. 11, R. 1 C.P.C. relating to discovery and inspection, praying that the election Tribunal should be pleased to administer certain interrogatories to the respondent in the said original petition. That petition was taken out under R. 1. It was objected to by the present petitioner in the civil revision petition. The objection was overruled by the election tribunal on the ground that "the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code would apply in regard to discovery and inspection; and that O. XI Rule 1 C.P.C. referred to discovery which includes interrogatories as well. Therefore, the petitioner is well within his limits to administer interrogatories to the respondent to get the relevant answers." Against this order, the respondent in the said original petition has preferred this civil revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel, Mr. K. Raman, appearing on behalf of the respondent in this civil revision petition, took exception to the maintainability of this civil revision petition itself on the ground that Art. 227 of the Constitution does not enable the petitioner to come up with such an application against the order of the election tribunal. I have heard him in full; and I do not think that his arguments have any force. The question as to whether the application under Art. 226 of 227 could be filed, has been given final rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. S. Ahmed Ishaque, The passage occurring at page 165 of the said decision (Mad LJ (SC)): (at p. 243 of AIR) is in very clear terms, and it states: