IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.147 of 2009 Mamta Devia wife of Madhusudan Prasad, Resident of village Purushhottampur, Police Station Awatarnagar, District Saran… ….Defendant/Petitioner versus Bhola Nath Sah son of Ram Pravesh Sah, resident of village Harajee, Police Station Awatarnagar, District Saran….. … Plaintiff/Opposite Party For the Petitioner: Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, Advocate. ….. 2 04.02.2009 Office has placed this case on the issue of maintainability of the present civil revision application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Election Suit No. 12 of 2006 has been filed before the Munsif, Saran at Chapra challenging the election of the Mukhia concerned in Gram Panchayat Election of 2006. It has been further submitted that the impugned order is not a final order, rather it is an interlocutory order, whereby the defendant petitioner’s prayer to recall the earlier order for allowing him to appear and file written statement has been rejected. He submits that this civil revision application would be maintainable. The stamp reporter has drawn my attention on a decision of this Court rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 12412 of 2001(Md. Zakir Hussain v. Hareshwar Pd. Singh and ors.), reported in 2001(4) Patna Law Journal Reports, 713, wherein the order of the Election - 2 - Tribunal allowing deletion of defendant nos. 6 to 15 from the array of the defendants was challenged, and the issue arose as to whether civil revision will be maintainable. The matter was decided and it was held as under:- “7. Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that when a civil court passes an order deciding an issue or when there is a case decided then the High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction may look into the corerectness, validity and propriety of the order and at the same time look into the question of jurisdiction, i.e., whether the court had jurisdiction to pass the order or it has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. 8. In an election petition the provision of section 115 of the C.P.C. would not apply for the simple reason because the Munsif does not act as civil court, but, in fact, as Election Tribunal. An Election Tribunal is altogether different entity than a civil court. A civil court while discharging the function delivers judgments which are subject to appear as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure - 3 - or as provided in the statute governing the rights of the parties but in an election petition the Tribunal delivers a final order which is final subject to appear etc. as provided under the statute. In any case an order passed by election tribunal can not be equated with an order passed by civil court making it subject to appeal or revision under C.P.C. The Election Tribunal cannot be equated with civil court.” In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, referred to above, I am also of the view that civil revision application is not maintainable in this case. This civil revision application is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail a proper remedy against the impugned order dated 11.12.2008. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)