JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The short question that has been raised in this petition is whether the District Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the Additional Munsif. Baramba, in Election Misc. Case No. 5 of 1984 not on merits of the case but on the ground that the Additional Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain an election dispute under the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. 2. The short facts necessary for adjudication of the present dispute are that the Petitioner objected to the nomination of opposite party No. 1 on the ground that he is disqualified for being a member of Grama Panchayat as he is interested in a subsisting contract which is a disqualification contemplated u/s 25(1)(n) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") The Election Officer overruled the objection of the Petitioner by his order dated 23-12-1983 whereupon opposite party No. 1 was elected as the Sarpanch of Gopinathpur Grama Panchayat. The Petitioner then filed an election petition u/s 30 of the Act before the Additional Munsif, Baramba. Opposite party No. 1 entered appearance and filed objection on several grounds but did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Additional Munsif to entertain the election petition. Against some interlocutory order passed by the Additional Munsif. Opposite party No. 1 came up to this Court in O.J.C. No. 148 of 1985 and even there also did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Additional Munsif to entertain the election petition. That writ petition was, however, disposed of by this Court on 8-2-1985 with certain directions. Thereafter, the learned Additional Munsif disposed of the election petition by his order dated 18-3-1985 and allowed the said petition. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Additional Munsif, opposite party No. 1 filed a miscellaneous appeal, but even in the memorandum of appeal filed before the District Judge, objection as to the jurisdiction of the Additional Munsif to entertain an election petition was not raised. After hearing the arguments of both parties, the learned District Judge, however, by his order dated 26th August, 1985, came to hold that the Additional Munsif, Baramba, had no jurisdiction to entertain an election petition since u/s 31 of the Act, an election petition can be presented before the Munsif having jurisdiction over the place at which the office of Gram Sasan is situated. According to the learned District Judge, the words "the Munsif" used in Section 31 of the Act mean that the Munsif has been appointed as a persona designata and, therefore, the Additional Munsif of Baramba cannot have power to entertain the application. 3. Mr. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that the object of Section 31 of the Act is to confer jurisdiction on the lowest civil court to entertain an election petition. The said object will be frustrated if it is interpreted that only the Munsif and not the Additional Munsif has the jurisdiction to entertain an election petition u/s 31 of the Act. According to Mr. Rao after creation of the post of Additional Munsif at Baramba, the said Additional Munsif exercises all the jurisdiction and powers of the Munsif over the territorial jurisdiction of Baramba and in that view of the matter, he must be held to have full powers to entertain application u/s 31 of the Act. Mr. Rao, the learned Counsel, further contends that since the opposite party had never challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Munsif to entertain the application at any stage even though he had approached this Court earlier in a writ petition against an interlocutory order, it was not appropriate for the District Judge to consider that point suo motu and decide the same. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, contends that in view of the language used in Section 31 there cannot be any other interpretation than the one which has been given by the learned District Judge. He further contends that since the question of jurisdiction does to the root of the matter, the District Judge was well within his powers to take up that issue and decide it for himself even though the parties had not taken the point before him. 4. In our opinion, it would not be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case to debate on the question as to whether the Additional Munsif who exercises the full powers of the Munsif throughout the territorial jurisdiction of Baramba is included within the ambit of the phrase "the Munsif having jurisdiction over the place" used in Section 31 of the Act, since according to us the writ petition can be disposed of on other grounds. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party never challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Munsif to entertain the election petition either in his objection filed before the Additional Munsif or in the earlier writ petition filed in this Court against an interlocutory order passed by the Additional Munsif or in the memorandum of appeal that was presented before the District Judge or even in the arguments advanced before the District Judge. In that view of the matter, the learned District Judge should not have raised that issue suo motu. In a similar matter in the case of Sohan Singh and Others Vs. General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur and Others, the Supreme Court had observed: ...it has rightly been pointed out on behalf of the Appellants that instead of challenging the competence of the jurisdiction of the labor court to try issue No. 4, the Respondents went to trial, submitted to its jurisdiction and when a decision was given against them by the labour court they, for the first time, challenged its jurisdiction to try that issue in the High Court. On the facts of this case, therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have entertained the point of jurisdiction urged on behalf of the Respondents and set: aside the order of the labour court on that ground alone. In the case in hand even before the District Judge, the opposite party had not raised that issue in the grounds of appeal nor even in the argument advanced on his behalf. Applying the principles enunciated in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, we have no doubt in our mind that the District Judge was in error to suo motu raise the question of jurisdiction which had not been urged before the Additional Munsif nor even before him by the opposite party. We would, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge dated 26-8-1985 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 57 of 1985 which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition and direct that the District Judge would now re-dispose of the miscellaneous appeal on merits after giving opportunity to the parties to be heard in the matter. The writ application is accordingly allowed, but without any order as to costs. Parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the District Judge, Cuttack, on 12-5-1986 to receive appropriate direction regarding of the miscellaneous appeal. The writ application is accordingly allowed, but without any order as to costs. Parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the District Judge, Cuttack, on 12-5-1986 to receive appropriate direction regarding of the miscellaneous appeal. B.K. Behera, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed