SANTRA DEVI Vs. LAXMI BAI MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dtd. 10/1/2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahwa, District Dausa in Election Petition No.1/2020 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 CPC, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that election of the petitioner as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pakhar-21, Panchayat Samiti Mahwa, Tehsil Mundawar, District Dausa was challenged by the respondent No.1 by way of an election petition under Sec. 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity "the Act of 1994") read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1994") framed thereunder. During the course of trial, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 CPC raising an objection as to maintainability of the election petition on the premise that it was presented before the Senior Munsarim, District and Sessions Court, Dausa instead of before the learned District Judge, Dausa as envisaged under Sec. 43 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dtd. 10/1/2022, impugned herein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Order 13 Rule 2 of the General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018, a Senior Munsarim can receive plaints or other papers under the Code, i.e., Civil Procedure Code only and not on election petition which, as per provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1994 can only be presented before the District Judge. He further submitted that even the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1897 shall not come to rescue of the election petition present before the Senior Munsarim instead of District Judge himself in view of the statutory provisions contained under the Act of 1994. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned dtd. 10/1/2022.