Judgment :- This civil revision petition has been preferred by the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, against the order of the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, recording a finding on issue No. 1 in the suit O.S. No. 9922 of 1988 instituted by the respondent herein, praying for a declaration that the election held on 22-9-1988 to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is null and void, non est and inoperative and consequently, restraining the petitioner from giving effect to the results of the said election by publication of the same in the official Gazette of the Government of Tamil Nadu, under sub-rules (1) and (2) of R. 34 of the Election Rules of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, after overruling the objection raised by the petitioner that the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit is barred. 2. The respondent is an Advocate borne on the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and a voter as well, in the election held on 22-9-1988. According to the averments in the plaint filed by the respondent, the election was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Rules of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the conduct of the election and the publication of the results are invalid and consequently, the members elected on what is styled as an illegal election cannot function as the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. In the plaint, the respondent has catalogued the several irregularities, which, according to him, would vitiate the entire election and they are (1) violation of Rule 4(2) of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India for the preparation of the Electoral Rolls; (2) exclusion of a large number of eligible voters from the Electoral Roll; (3) inclusion of nearly 700 voters in the Electoral Roll without adhering to the procedure prescribed therefor; (4) violation of the secrecy of voting in the elections on the ground of lack of privacy while marking on the ballot papers, presence of candidates and several other persons at the place of voting, snatching away of the ballot papers from the hands of the voters, appointment of the office-bearers of the local associations, resulting in a compulsion for giving the first vote to a local candidate, impersonation and rigging; (5) invalidity of the requirement regarding the payment of a non-refundable fee of Rs. 1, 000/- for contesting the elections; (6) throwing of parties to the electors at some of the clubs with liquor flowing freely; (7) open canvassing by some District Judges, orally and by written communications; (8) advertisements inserted by candidates seeking votes; (9) defective ballot boxes, as a result of the use of kerosene tins; and (10) irregularities in the counting of the votes, by not following the prescribed procedure. On the basis of the aforesaid irregularities stated to have been committed, the respondent had prayed for the reliefs referred to already. 3. Amongst others, the petitioner raised an objection that under Rules 35 to 37 of the Election Rules, framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. Issue No. 1 was framed in that regard and the court below on a consideration of the aforesaid rules, found that those rules do not either expressly or by implication oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and that those rules applied only to cases, in which the election of a candidate as a member of the Bar Council is challenged on certain specified grounds set out in the Rules and not to a case, where numerous general irregularities of the nature alleged in this case have been put forward, as vitiating the validity of the entire election. It is the correctness of this order that is questioned in this civil revision petition. 4. It is the correctness of this order that is questioned in this civil revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention to Rules 35, 36 and 37 of the Election Rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, contended that those rules constituted a complete machinery for questioning the validity of an election to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and a special machinery has also been constituted thereunder, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. On the other hand, the respondent, who appeared in person, submitted that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred, but such exclusion should be explicity stated or clearly implied and Rules 35 to 37 of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu do not provide for such exclusion, but provide only for challenging the election of a candidate at the instance of a voter on the grounds specified therein and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted. Reference was also made in this connection by the respondent to the decisions reported in Bar Council of West Bengal v. Miss Ajanta Aughstin, 1979 AIR(Cal) 35 and Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh, 1980 AIR(SC) 1612, 1980 (4) SCC 211 , 1980 (3) SCR 946 , 1967 AIR(Raj) 239. 5. In order to appreciate the contentions thus raised, it would be necessary to refer to Rules 35 to 37 of the Election Rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. They run as follows :- "35. (1) Any voter may contest the validity of the election of a candidate declared to have been elected to the council by a petition signed by him and supported by an affidavit and delivered to the Secretary personally or sent by registered post to the Secretary within 15 days from the date of publication of the results in the official Gazette. (2) Such petition shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 250/- by way of demand draft on the State Bank of India, Madras, in favour of the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and it is not refundable. (3) No election shall be called in question except on one or more of the following grounds: (a) Fraud, coercion or undue influence and any form of corruption in the conduct of the election. (3) No election shall be called in question except on one or more of the following grounds: (a) Fraud, coercion or undue influence and any form of corruption in the conduct of the election. (b) violation of the provisions of the Act or rules or commission of an election offence or irregularity (which) materially affect the result of the election. (4) Such petition shall include as respondents the contesting candidates with their addresses. The affidavit and petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents. 36. (1) All disputes under the above rule shall be decided by Election Tribunal consisting of three advocates of more than 10 years standing on the Roll of this Bar Council appointed by the Bar Council on or before the date on which the election is fixed. The Secretary of the Bar Council shall act as the Registrar of the Tribunal. Senior among the three shall be Chairman of the Tribunal. (2) Where there is or are one or more vacancies in the Tribunal by reason of death, resignation or any cause whatsoever the same shall be filled up by the Bar Council of India from amongst Advocates on the roll of the State Bar Council concerned. 37. The Election Tribunal shall have all or any of the following powers : (i) to dismiss a petition; (ii) to order recount; (iii) to declare any candidate to have been duly elected on a recount; (iv) to set aside the election of the candidate who either by himself or through any other person acting with his consent is guilty of corrupt practices. The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act. (1) 'Bribery' that is to say - (A) Any gift, offer or promise of any gratification to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly or inducing- (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, of to withdraw or not to Withdraw from being a candidate at an election, or (b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to, (i) a person for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature; or (c) an elector having voted or refrained from voting. (B) The receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification whether as a motive or an reward. (B) The receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification whether as a motive or an reward. (a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing from being a candidate; or (b) by a person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature. For the purpose of this clause, the term 'gratification' is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward. (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interferences or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right including the issuing or sending of any appeal or manifesto for votes whether direct or indirect. Provided that a mere intimation of a candidature with a bare request for a vote shall not amount to undue influence. And provided further that a candidate or his agent may also orally ask for votes from voters, but on the date of election such request shall not be made within a radius of 200 yards from the Polling Station. And a candidate may issue a written intimation to his voters announcing his candidature and seeking their votes or their first preference votes, which intimation shall not contain any other publicity or his eulogy. Such written intimation shall also not amount to undue influence. Attempt to secure from any voter his ballot paper with intent to prevent him from transmitted it directly or with intent to ensure that the vote has been cast or is to be cast for a particular candidate shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of the said voter. (3) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise of any vehicle or vessel or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector to or from any polling station. Explanation : The vacancy arising under sub-rule: (iv) shall be filled up as a casual vacancy. (v) in other cases to declare a vacancy to be filled up as a casual vacancy. Explanation : The vacancy arising under sub-rule: (iv) shall be filled up as a casual vacancy. (v) in other cases to declare a vacancy to be filled up as a casual vacancy. (vi) to make an order as to costs." Even as the opening words of Rule 35(1) indicate, a voter is enabled to contest the validity of the election of a candidate declared to have been elected, by means of a petition and the grounds on which such an election can be called in question have also been set out in Rule 35(3). It is thus seen that Rule 35 is confined in its application to questioning the validity of the election of a candidate on the grounds mentioned under Rule 35(3) and cannot have any application in a case like this, where the whole election of all the members to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is challenged on the ground of several irregularities referred to earlier. Under Rule 36, an Election Tribunal is constituted for the purpose of deciding all disputes under Rule 35 and necessarily, therefore, the Constitution of an Election Tribunal for the purpose of discharging its duties as such is confined only to cases falling under Rule 35 and not any other. Rule 37, after enumerating the powers of the Tribunal to dismiss an election petition or to order recount or to declare any candidate to have been duly elected on recount or even to set aside the election of a candidate, who either by himself or through any other person acting with his consent is guilty of corrupt practices, proceeds to lay down the corrupt practices for purposes of the election petition. Again, the powers of the Election Tribunal under Rule 37 have been enumerated with reference to an election petition filed under Rule 35, which, as pointed out earlier, is confined to the questioning of the validity of the election of a candidate, who is declared to have been elected, by means of a petition. Thus, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Rules 35 to 37 of the Election Rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu do not in any manner assist in holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in a case like this, where numerous irregularities have been alleged against the validity of the election as a whole is ousted. Indeed, learned counsel for the petitioner did not also draw the attention of the Court to any rule to the effect that in all matters relating to the election of members to the Bar Council, inclusive of the invalidity of the election as a whole, resort should be had only to the Election Tribunal and not to the Civil Court. No rule in the Election Rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, provided for the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in a case like this. It is, in this connection, that the decisions relied on by the respondent are relevant. 6. In Bar Council of W. B. v. Ajanta Aughstin, 1979 AIR(Cal) 35, the election to the Bar Council was challenged on the ground of irregularities in the preparation of the electoral roll was also characterised as an illegal one and on that footing, relief was sought for in a suit. An objection was raised by Bar Council of West Bengal, relying upon R. 34(4) of the West Bengal Bar Council Rules which provided for the constitution of an Election Tribunal to decide all disputes relating to an election, that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted. Rule 34 of the West Bengal Bar Council Rules is couched in language, which is almost identical to Rules 35 to 37 of the Election Rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. In overruling the objection raised regarding the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, it was pointed out that it is settled law that exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be readily inferred, but such exclusion must either be clearly expressed or implied and Rule 34 of the West Bengal Bar Council Rules did not contain any provision expressly excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and it did not also provide for such exclusion either expressly or by necessary implication, except that the Civil Court is, by necessary implication, debarred from enquiring into a challenge to the election of a candidate, at the instance of a voter on the two grounds, on which such an election could be challenged before the Election Tribunal. It was also further pointed out that there was no implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the validity of an election to the West Bengal Bar Council. It was also further pointed out that there was no implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the validity of an election to the West Bengal Bar Council. In Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with a case, where the relief prayed for was the setting aside of the election to the Bar Council of Delhi, on the basis of the invalidity of certain rules framed for preparation of the Election Rolls. It was, in that context, the Supreme Court referred, with approval, to the following passage in Parmeshwar Mahaseth v. State of Bihar, 1958 AIR(Patna) 149 at page 153 : "It was urged by the learned Government Advocate that the election cannot be disputed except by an election petition, as laid down in R. 62 of the Election Rules. He submitted that petitioner had already filed an election petition after the presentation of this writ application. The contention is not valid. What is challenged here is not the election of a particular candidate, but the validity of the entire election, because of the violation of the essential provisions of the Election Rules and the Act. I think, R. 62 provides for a case where a person challenges the election of a particular candidate. I would overrule the objection." * The Supreme Court also made a reference to the following passage in the decision in Umakant Singh v. Bindra Choudhary, 1965 AIR(Patna) 459 and approved of the same. "Mr. Shankar Kumar appearing for respondents 6 and 7 submitted that the election ought to have been challenged by following the machinery provided in Rule 148 of the Rules, and this Court, in exercise of its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution, should not interfere with the election when a special machinery was provided for challenging it. I am unable to accept the argument. I am unable to accept the argument. It is the well settled view of the Court that if the entire election is challenged as having been held under statutes or statutory Rules which are invalid or by committing illegalities which make the entire election void, it can be quashed by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari." In addition to the above, reference was also made by the Supreme Court to the following passage in Dev Prakash Balmukund v. Bary Ram Rewti Mal, 1961 AIR(Punjab) 429 at page 434 : "Everybody, of course, agrees that, if the very foundation of the election, namely, the electoral roll is illegal, no election on its basis can proceed or be allowed to stand, but that does not mean that any kind of defect in the roll, however technical in its nature, will suffice to reach such a conclusion." The Supreme Court then proceeded to observe that it would depend upon the nature and the intensity of the error committed in the preparation of the electoral roll and its effect on the whole election for deciding the question and finally the Supreme Court pointed out that the nature of the irregularities in that case were such that the Election Tribunal would have found itself incompetent to declare the relevant rule as ultra vires and, therefore, there was no bar to the issue of a writ. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the availability of a machinery for questioning the validity of an election of an elected candidate at the instance of a voter on certain specified grounds would not in any manner affect the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit questioning the validity and legality of the election of all the members of the Bar Council as a whole on the grounds mentioned earlier. In the absence, therefore, of any express or implied ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in a case like the present, the Court below was quite right in holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by the respondent. There is, therefore, no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Court below. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of the respondent in a sum of Rs. 500/-. There is, therefore, no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Court below. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of the respondent in a sum of Rs. 500/-. Inasmuch as the legality and validity of the election of the members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, a professional body, as a whole, is challenged on the ground of commission of several irregularities and violation and infraction of the rules, it is desirable that the suit is heard and disposed of as early as possible and counsel for the petitioner and the respondent requested that a direction may be given to the Court below to advance the suit, now posted to 30-4-1991, and dispose it of as early as possible. This appears to be a very just and reasonable request and the learned Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras is directed to list the suit immediately and hear it from day to day and dispose of the same on or before 30-4-1991 and report such disposal to this Court. Petition dismissed.