JAGMOHAN SURAJMAL MARWADI Vs. VENKATESH GOPAL RANADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application made under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the decision of the District Judge of Bijapur, in the matter of an election petition, challenging the validity of the election of a candidate for Ward II of the City Municipality of Bijapur. The proceedings were held and a decision made under Section 15 of the Bombay City Municipalities Act of 1925.

(2.) A preliminary objection is taken that no recourse can be had to this Court, since under Section 15 the District Judge was acting not as a Court but as a persona designata and that we have therefore no jurisdiction, If this is so, then, I think, on the authority of the cases of Balaji Sakharam V/s. Merwanji Nowroji (1895) I.L.R. 21 Bom. 279 and Gangadhar V/s. Hubli Municipality (1925) 28 Bom. L.R. 519 the application for revision does not lie.

(3.) Mr. Pradhan's contention is that the law was changed in consequence of the decisions I have quoted above, and he relies on the case of Sholapur Municipality V/s. Tuljaram , in which it was held by a Division Bench of this Court, that an application lay under Section 198, Sub- sections (2), (5), (4) and (5) of the same Act. Those provisions relate to compensation for land acquired, and are in the nature of arbitration proceedings and self-contained. Mr. Pradhan also relies on the case of Parthasaradhi Naidu V/s. Koteswara Rao (1923) I.L.R. 47 Mad. 369, F.B., where it was held by the Madras High Court that revision of certain orders passed under the Taluka Local Boards Act in that province lay to the Court.