MAHEDAR RAHAMAN MIA Vs. KANTI CHANDRA BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for a declaration that the election of the defendant to the Malda Local Board was illegal and void and for a perpetual injunction restraining him from exercising the functions of a member of the same Board. Various objections were taken by the plaintiff to the election of the defendant. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below the learned advocate appearing for the appellant has pressed in this appeal only one objection, namely, that the defendant not being a qualified voter was not entitled to stand as a candidate in the election. The defendant's answer to this objection was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try that question. The Courts below have accepted the defendant's plea on this point and have agreed in dismissing the suit. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) The only point for determination therefore in this appeal is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the question whether the defendant was a qualified voter or not. Section 9, Civil P.C., lays down that the Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

(3.) The point for determination therefore is whether the trial of this question by the civil Court is barred either expressly or impliedly. The case for the defendant is that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred by the rules which have been framed by the Local Government under Section 138-A, Local Self-Government Act (3 of 1885). Rule 1-A of the Statutory Rules framed under the aforesaid Act is in these terms: All disputes arising under these rules other than objections under Rr. 15 and 42 shall be decided by the Magistrate and his decision shall be final.