MADAN GOPAL GUPTA Vs. LEELARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY his order dated the 9th of March, 1971, the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer, has rejected the Municipal Election Petition of Madan Gopal Gupta because it was not presented to the District Judge himself but to the Munsarim of that Court. Madan gopal Gupta, the petitioner, appeals.

(2.) THE facts, which it is necessary to notice for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated are these: Dr. Leela Ram, respondent No. 1, was elected as a member from ward No. 17 to the Ajmer Municipal Council and the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were defeated. The election took place on 25-1070 and the counting was made on 26-10-70 and on the same day the result was declared. A petition challenging the election was submitted on 25-11-70 before the munsarim of the District Judge, Aimer. By his order dated 19-1-1971 the petition was transferred to the Civil Judge, Aimer, An application was made by the respondent No. 1 on January 2, 1971, in which the respondent No. 1 raised the grounds that the election petition was neither presented by the proper person nor before the appropriate authority as required by Section 36 of the Rajasthan municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). The learned Civil Judge thought it fit to decide the preliminary points and held that while the presentation of the petition by Shri B. L. Samdaria, Advocate, who was along with the petitioner was proper but held that the presentation having been made to the Munsarim of the learned District Judge and not to the District Judge personally, it was not presented before the competent authority as required by law and rejected the petition.

(3.) MR, N. B. L. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that presentation to the District Judge's Munsarim was sufficient compliance or the provisions of Section 40 of the Act; that the Code of Civil Procedure was applicable to Municipal Election petitions under Section 41 (3) of the Act; that any delay on the part of the Munsarim to place the petition before the learned District Judge was a lapse on the part of the Munsarim and should not prejudice the petitioner's rights to seek justice; that the ruling of Bajrang Lal v. Suraj, 1966 Raj LW 614 relied upon by learned Civil Judge was distinguishable and the case was compared by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Bansilal v. Manoharlal, 1959 Raj LW 515. He further submitted that the District Judge under Section 40 was not a persona designata and the presentation to the Munsarim was perfectly valid.