VENKATASUBBA CHETTIAR Vs. SESHA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 115 of Act V of 1908, and Section 107, Government of India Act.

(2.) Petitioner and respondent were the only two candidates at the election held on 22nd September, 1922, for the appointment of a councillor to represent the 12th Ward of the Trichinopoly Municipality. The petitioner was declared duly elected and respondent filed a petition before the District Judge of Trichinopoly under the rules framed in accordance with Section 303(2)(b), Madras Act V of 1920. While the inquiry into this petition was pending the respondent applied in I. A. No. 625 of 1922 purporting to be under Secs.94, 141, 151 and Order 39, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C. that the present petitioner be restrained by a temporary injunction from taking his seat in the Municipal Council until the disposal of the petition. In his order on this application, dated 30 October, 1922, the District Judge restrained the petitioner by interim injunction from taking his seat in the Council. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) The question for determination is whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to pass such an injunction. Rule I of the Rules for the decision of disputes as to the validity of an election lays down that no election held under the Madras District Municipalities Act shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these rules. Under Rule 6, "Every election petition, shall be inquired into by the Judge as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to the trial of suits." It is argued for the petitioner that procedure applicable to the trial of suits cannot include the power to pass an interim injunction, while on behalf of respondent it is contended that Rule 6 does convey such power and in any case, the District judge has a residuary power which enables him to take such action under the Code as may seem proper during the course of the enquiry.