Skip to content


Arunachela Naicker Vs. C.K. Venkatachari and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in93Ind.Cas.841
AppellantArunachela Naicker
RespondentC.K. Venkatachari and ors.
Excerpt:
madras civil courts act (iii of 1873), sections 13, 27 - madras local boards act (xiv of 1920), rules under, for decision of election disputes--rule 4, clause 3--district munsif, whether subordinate to subordinate judge--election petition, transfer of, by sub-judge to district munsif, legality of. - .....3 of the rules framed under the madras local boards act transmitted the case to the court of the district munsif of madurantakam. the district munsif seems to have realised that the procedure was not justifiable as his court coy id not be treated as a court subordinate, to the subordinate judge under rule 4 clause 3 and the matter was represented to the subordinate judge. but the subordinate judge decided that he had power to transmit the case to the district munsif and get him to try it. this revision petition is against the order of the district munsif proceeding to try the case under the orders of the subordinate judge.2. it seems to me that the order of the subordinate judge sending the case to the district munsif is not correct. that order is not supported before me by the.....
Judgment:

1. This petition refers to an election petition which had been filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput against the election of the President of the Union Board of Uttaramallur. The Subordinate Judge apparently acting under Rule 4, Clause 3 of the Rules framed under the Madras Local Boards Act transmitted the case to the Court of the District Munsif of Madurantakam. The District Munsif seems to have realised that the procedure was not justifiable as his Court coy Id not be treated as a Court subordinate, to the Subordinate Judge under Rule 4 Clause 3 and the matter was represented to the Subordinate Judge. But the Subordinate Judge decided that he had power to transmit the case to the District Munsif and get him to try it. This revision petition is against the order of the District Munsif proceeding to try the case under the orders of the Subordinate Judge.

2. It seems to me that the order of the Subordinate Judge sending the case to the District Munsif is not correct. That order is not supported before me by the respondent's Vakil. The Court of the District Munsif of Madurantakam cannot be treated as a Court subordinate to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput as no appeals lie from that Court to the Subordinate Judge, but appeals lie to the District Court only. In the Civil Courts Act the District Munsifs are not treated as subordinate to the Subordinate Judges. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the District Munsifs Court was a Court to which the Subordinate Judge was entitled to send this petition. The Subordinate Judge himself should have tried the matter.

3. I, therefore, set aside all the orders passed in this case and direct the Subordinate Judge to dispose of the election petition at an early date. Costs of this revision petition will be costs in the election petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //