JUDGMENT - V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. :---Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners herein, who are the elected candidates, challenge the order passed by the trial Court acting as an election tribunal under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, staying the elections of the Up-Sarpanch concerning the Gram Panchayat, Wadegaon. It is an admitted position that the petitioners are declared elected candidates and an election petition came to be filed challenging their elections by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Sanjeev Ramrao Chatol and Smt. Wandana w/o Arun Kakad. Initially, an injunction was also sought restraining the present petitioners from voting in the elections to the posts of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch, which was rejected by the trial Court. However, it seems that thereafter the trial Court has chosen to issue an ad interim ex parte injunction to that effect. In the wake of established canons of law, such grant of injunction is highly objectionable. That apart, as if this was not sufficient, the trial Court has proceeded to stay the election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch itself. The only subject which the trial Court was dealing with was the validity of the election of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. One fails to understand as to how the trial Court assumed the jurisdiction to stay the further election for the posts of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. The order of the trial Court granting the stay is completely illegal and without any justification in law, whatsoever. The impugned order suggests that the trial Court has assumed this jurisdiction under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it assumed that the powers under section 151 are complimentary to the powers of the Civil Court under Order 39 and Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The whole discussion regarding these powers is irrelevant. The Court may have inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and these powers may be complimentary or in addition to the powers which the Court already has to grant injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. However, that does not give the jurisdiction to the Court to do which it cannot otherwise do namely to stay the further elections of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. However, that does not give the jurisdiction to the Court to do which it cannot otherwise do namely to stay the further elections of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. The trial Court in the present case has no jurisdiction whatsoever to stay the further elections to the posts of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch only because it is called upon to decide the validity of the election of couple of members of the village panchayat and halt the democratic process. Trial Court has observed in para 7 in the following manner:--- "It is in this back-ground that the petitioners have filed application Exhibits 28 and 31 alleging that in case if the election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch is held without any proper adjudication of the main petition, the legal rights of the petitioner No. 2, to contest election for the post of Sarpanch will be jeopardised." These observations have absolutely no basis. What the trial Court was called upon to decide was the validity of the election of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and not the right of respondent No. 2 to contest the post of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. The trial Court, to say the least, has completely misdirected itself in looking beyond the scope of the election petition and in the territories which it was not supposed even to cast any glance. It seems that the trial Court was much too impressed because of the fact that the post of Sarpanch was reserved for a lady and that one of the election petitioners was herself a lady. I am afraid, that consideration is completely extraneous and irrelevant to the question involved in the election petition. It is really strange that the trial Court should have been so casual in staying the election of the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch when that election was not the subject matter of the election petition pending before it. Unfortunately, the said unnecessary exercise by the trial Court has resulted in stay of the election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch and thus bringing the whole democratic process of election to a grinding halt. It was wholly incorrect on the part of the trial Court to presume that the respondent No. 2 was going to succeed in the election petition and get the declaration that she is an elected candidate. Such presumptions have no place in election law and the election tribunals should not allow themselves to be misled by them. It was wholly incorrect on the part of the trial Court to presume that the respondent No. 2 was going to succeed in the election petition and get the declaration that she is an elected candidate. Such presumptions have no place in election law and the election tribunals should not allow themselves to be misled by them. No provision in Bombay Village Panchayats Act authorises the election tribunal to stay the further election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch while trying the election dispute of the nature in question here. 3. In the result, the impugned order of the trial Court is completely without jurisdiction as also highly lacks in judicial propriety. The order has to be, therefore, set aside, and the petition has to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.