JUDGMENT 1. - The question (illegible) for consideration for consideration in all these three revisions, is whether the Judge acting under Rule 800 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 is a persona designata and can his action in dealing with election petitions be revised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. This question emerges in the circumstances set out below - (i) Calling in question the interim order passed by the learned Civil Judges (Senior Division) in the matter of Election Petitions under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules 1994') the petitioners preferred the revisions. (ii) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the non-petitioners in respect of maintainability of revision on the ground that tie Judge acting under the Rules 1994 is a persona designata and no revision lies against his order. Therefore, it is necessary to decide first tins issue, whether the instant revisions are maintainable or not. 3. It will be useful to refer relevant statutory provisions - Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows - "115. Revision. - (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto and if such subordinate Court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section very or reverse any other order made or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where- (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party' against whom it was made. (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, very' or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lie either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. Explanation. - In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made or any other order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding." 4. For application of Section 115, CPC it is necessary that order impugned should be an order of a Court subordinate to the High Court. Which court shall be subordinate to the High Court is mentioned in Section 3, CPC which reads as under : "3. Subordination of Courts. - For the purposes of this Code, the District Court is subordinate to the High Court, and every Civil Court of a grade inferior to that of a District Court and every Court of Small Causes is subordinate to the High Court and District Court." 5. Now I proceed to examine the provisions contained in the Rules 1994. Rule 80 of the Rules 1994 provides thus - "80. Manner of Challenging an election under the Act. Now I proceed to examine the provisions contained in the Rules 1994. Rule 80 of the Rules 1994 provides thus - "80. Manner of Challenging an election under the Act. - An election under the Act or under the Rules may be called in question by any candidate at such election by presenting a petition to the District Judge having jurisdiction within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election is declared, on any one or more of the following grounds - (a) that on the date of election a returned I candidate was not qualified or was disqualified for such election, or (b) that any corrupt practise was committed by a candidate or by any other person with the consent or connivance of the candidate, or (c) that any nomination was improperly rejected, or (d) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate was materially affected - (i) by the improper acceptance of any ; nomination, of (ii) by any corrupt practise committed in I the interest of the candidate by a person other : than that candidate or by a person acting with I the consent or connivance of such candidate, or (iii) by improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which was void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of these rules, or (e) that in fact the petitioner or some other candidate received a majority of the valid votes, or (f) that, but for votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices, the petitioner or some other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes." 6. The election petition presented under the Rules 1994 shall be heard in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 85 of the Rules 1994 which reads as follows : "Hearing of petition. The election petition presented under the Rules 1994 shall be heard in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 85 of the Rules 1994 which reads as follows : "Hearing of petition. - The procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) in regard to suits, shall, in so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in the hearing of the petition : Provided that - (a) any two or more petition relating to the election of the same person shall be heard together; (b) the Judge shall not be required to record evidence in full but shall only make a memorandum thereof sufficient in his opinion for the purpose of deciding the petition ; (c) the petitioner may, at any stage of the proceeding be asked to give further security for the payment of the costs likely to be incurred by any respondent; (d) the Judge, shall only be bound to require the production of, or to receive so much evidence, oral or documentary as he considers necessary, and (e) no witness or other person shall be required to state for whom he has voted at an election." 7. Powers of the Judge, hearing the election petition have been prescribed in Rule 86 of the Rules 1984 which reads as under - "86. Powers of Court hearing petition. - The Judge hearing a petition shall have the same powers and privilege as a Judge of a Civil Court when trying a suit and may for the purpose of serving any notice or issuing any process of doing any other thing employ an officer, clerk or peon attached to this Court: Provided that no injunction or stay order shall be issued restraining the person, whose election is questioned from exercising the power and performing the duties under the Act and rule made thereunder." 8. The Judge can transfer or withdraw the election petition under Rule 85 of the Rules 1994 which reads as under - "85. The Judge can transfer or withdraw the election petition under Rule 85 of the Rules 1994 which reads as under - "85. General power of transfer or withdrawal - (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of his own motion without such notice, the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the place or headquarters of the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be is situated may at any stage of the proceeding withdraw any petition pending in the Court of any Judge sub-ordinate to him ; and (i) try or dispose of the same, or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court of any other Judge within his jurisdiction, or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) There any petition has been withdrawn or transferred under sub-rule (1) the Court which thereafter tries such petition may subject to any special directions contained in the order of transfer, either re-try it or proceed from the point at which it was withdrawn or transferred." 9. The manner in which the final order shall be made by the Judge, is provided in Rule 87 of the Rules 1994 which reads as follows - "87. Order of the Court. - (1) Upon the conclusion of the hearing the Judge shall make an order - (a) dismissing the petition, or (b) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void, or (c) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected. (2) The Judge, after pronouncing the order made under sub-rule (1) shall send a copy thereof to the District Election Officer (Panchayats) for taking further necessary action in pursuance thereof." 10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Central Talkies Ltd. Kanpur v. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1961 SC 606 , defined persona designata thus- "....A persona designata is 'a person who is pointed out or described as an individual, as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class, or as filling a particular character.' (See Osboru's Concise Law Dictionary, 4th Edn. P. 253). P. 253). In the words of Schwat CJ in Farthasarthi Naidu v. Koteswar Rao, ILR 47 Mad 369 : AIR 1924 Mad 561 (FB) , persona designata are persons selected to act in their private capacity and not in their capacity as judges. 11. Numerous other authorities were also cited at the bar distinguishing the Court acting as persona designata and the Civil Court stricto sensu but I shall only discuss those authorities which have direct bearing on the issue before me. 12. In Kesri Prasad v. Bodh Raj, RLW 1951 P. 102 , this Court (Hon'ble Ranawat J. as the then was) indicated as under - "The District Judge, acting under Section 22 of the U.P. Municipalities Act of 1946, as applied to the former United State of Rajasthan, is a persona designata and his action in dealing with petition cannot be revised by the High Court under Section 115, CPC." 13. Keshav Dev v. Radhey Shaym, RLW 1964 Page 1 was the case where the Division Bench (comprising of Hon'ble D.S. Dave Actg. CJ. and Shinghal J.) had occasion to interpret Rules 78 and 83 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960. The D.B. propounded thus - "Rule 83 no doubt lays down that the procedure provided in the CPC in regard to suits shall, in so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in the hearing of the petition, but this does not mean that the CPC would apply to election petitions even with regard to appeals. A plain meaning of this rule only shows that the Munsif or the Civil Judge while trying the election petition should follows the provisions of the CPC in the same way as that procedure is followed in regard to suits but the procedure is to be followed only in so far as it can be made applicable or that too only in the hearing of the petition. There is nothing in the rule to indicate that the Munsif, at the time of hearing the election petition function as an ordinary Court of civil jurisdiction Subordinate to the District Judge or that an appeal would lie to the District Judge as a matter of course. There is nothing in the rule to indicate that the Munsif, at the time of hearing the election petition function as an ordinary Court of civil jurisdiction Subordinate to the District Judge or that an appeal would lie to the District Judge as a matter of course. The term Court as used in the heading is meant only to show that while hearing the election petition the Munsif or Civil Judge functions as a judicial tribunal and that it is only in that sense that this word seems to have been used. The Munsif or the Civil Judge is not made identical with the Civil Court, otherwise it would have the same powers and privileges as a Civil Court." 14. In Surendra Mohan v. Dharam Chand, AIR 1971 J&K 76 , it was observed that "where the authority has been empowered to act judicially and possesses all the trappings of a law and has to abide by the rules of evidence then its selection by designation must be presumed to be as a Court and not a persona designata." 15. In Badri Nath Gupta v. Estate Officer, AIR 1977 J & K 38 , it was held that the District Judge while hearing the appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 does not act as a persona designata but acts as a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court and the District Judge has been prescribed as the appellate authority not in his personal or individual capacity but by virtue of the post that he is holding and no District Judge has either been designated as the appellate authority by name nor has any District Judge been singled out for functioning as the appellate authority." 16. The term 'persona designata' in connection with the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Thakur Dass v. State of M.P., AIR 1978 SC 1 . The Sessions Judge was appointed as an appellate authority by the State Government under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. In that connection it was observed that, "the Sessions Court is constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure and indisputably it is an inferior Criminal Court in relation to the High Court. The Sessions Judge was appointed as an appellate authority by the State Government under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. In that connection it was observed that, "the Sessions Court is constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure and indisputably it is an inferior Criminal Court in relation to the High Court. Therefore, against the order made in exercise of powers conferred by; Section 60, a revision application would lie to the? High Court and the High Court would be entitled, to entertain a revision application under Section 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which was in force at the relevant time and such revision would be competent." 17. The principles laid down in Surendra Mohan's case (supra) Badrinath Gupta's case (supra) and Thakur Das case (supra), were considered in Ram v. Mod Ram, RLW 1978 Page 587 , by this Court (Hon'ble S.K. Mai Lodha, J. as he then was). It was urged that on the basis of the decision is Surendra Mohan's case, Badri Nath Gupta's case and Thakurdas case, the Division Bench observations in Keshav Das v. Radhey Shyam, 1964 RLW 1 , required reconsideration. The learned single Judge turned down the argument and propounded thus - "From the rules mentioned above, there is no room for any doubt that the Munsif or the Civil Judge hearing the election petition under Rule 78 of the Rules has not been made identical with the Civil Court. There is no bar to the appointment of a persona designata by official designation as per Section 17 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act (Act No. VII of 1955) Section 15 of the General Clauses Act No. X of 1897. It is clear from the aforesaid rules that a special Tribunal has been constituted to her and dispose of the election petition under the Rules. In these circumstance Keshav Dev's case (supra) in my opinion does not require reconsideration." Learned single Judge, therefore, concluded that "the Munsif or the Civil Judge hearing the election petition under Rule 78 of the Rules is a persona designata and is not a Court subordinate to the High Court". 18. In Narain Dutt v. Ibrahim, 1997(2) WLC (Raj) 134 , this Court (Hon'ble P.C. Jain, J.) also dealt with the term "persona designata" in connection with the provisions of Section 40 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. 18. In Narain Dutt v. Ibrahim, 1997(2) WLC (Raj) 134 , this Court (Hon'ble P.C. Jain, J.) also dealt with the term "persona designata" in connection with the provisions of Section 40 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. In para No. 12 of the Judgment, his Lordship discussed and distinguished the principles laid down in Mod Ram v. Mali Ram, 1978 RLW 587 , as follows - "In 1978 RLW 587 the question was straight way dealt with but unfortunately the weighty observations which clinch the issue appearing in AIR 1961 SC 606 were not appreciated. - The observations extracted above do not leave any doubt that the Distt. Judge performs the above special duty in the capacity of the office of Distt. Judge. It may further be observed that under the Act the procedure for trying the election case is laid down in Section 41 of the Act. The provisions of the CPC as well as the Evidence Act have been made applicable with certain restriction. Thus, the case is tried in accordance with the CPC and by applying the provisions of the Evidence Act. I am therefore, disposed to hold that the Distt. Judge, hearing the election petition of the parties under Section 40 of the Act was not a persona designata." (Emphasis supplied) 19. Central Talkies Ltd. Kanpur v. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1961 SC 606 , was the case where Dwarka Prasad, a lessor instituted a suit for ejectment to vacate the premises against the lessee Central Talkies Ltd. during the pendency of that suit, the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1946 came into force. Under Section 3 of the said Act, permission of the District Magistrate was required to file in any Civil Court a suit for eviction of a tenant. Dwarka Prasad, therefore, withdrew the suit. He then applied to the District Magistrate for permission to eject Central Talkies Ltd. from the premises, and the permission was granted by the Additional District Magistrate (Rural area). The only point urged before their Lordships of the Supreme Court was, that the suit was incompetent because permission of the District Magistrate as required by Section 3 of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1946 had not been obtained. The only point urged before their Lordships of the Supreme Court was, that the suit was incompetent because permission of the District Magistrate as required by Section 3 of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1946 had not been obtained. The material portion of Section 3, as it stood on the relevant date, read as follows - "No suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any Civil Court, against a tenant for the eviction from any accommodation, except on one or more of the following grounds...." 'District Magistrate' is defined by Section 2(d) of the Act which reads - "District Magistrate' includes and officer authorised by the District Magistrate to perform any of his functions under this Act." Therefore, it was argued that the 'District Magistrate' mentioned in Section 3 was a persona designata and that either he or an officer authorised by him to perform his functions could grant permission. Their Lordships in para 9 of the judgment propounded thus - "The argument that the District Magistrate was a persona designata cannot be accepted. Under the Definition of 'District Magistrate' the special authorisation of the District Magistrate had the effect of creating officers exercising the powers of a District Magistrate under the Eviction Act. To that extent, those officers would, on authorisation be equated to the District Magistrate." It is after this observation that reference of 'Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary' and Parthasarthi Naidu v. Koteswara Rao, AIR 1974 Madras 561 (FB) , was made (reproduced in para 10 of this judgment by me). Referring to the observations of the Full Bench of Madras High Court in Parthasarthis case (supra) that personal designation are person's authorisation to act in such private capacity and not in their capacity as judges" their Lordships of the Supreme Court further observed that, "The same consideration applies to a well-known officer like the District Magistrate named by virtue of his office and whose powers the Additional District Magistrate can also exercise and who can create other officers equal to himself or the purposes of the Eviction Act." 20. In Motiram v. Mali Ram, 1978 RLW 587 , case of Central Talkies Ltd., (supra) was referred but the learned Judge did only choose to deal,with another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thakur Das case, AIR 1978 SC 1 , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court after interpreting the provisions of Section 60 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, observed that "Sessions Court" is not persona designata. Learned single Judge in Mod Ram v. Mali Ram (supra) placed reliance on Kesri Prasad's case RLW 1951 page 102 , and Keshav Dev's case RLW 1951 Page 102 , and Keshav Dev's case RLW 1964 Page I , observed that Munsif or Civil Judge trying election petition under the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 is not a Court subordinate to the High Court. Therefore, no revision lies to the High Court. 21. A close look at Narain Dutt v. Ibrahim, 1997 (2) WLC (Raj) 134 , reveals that case of Keshav Lal v. Radhey Shyam, RLW 1964 Page 1 DB , not placed before his Lordship and the ratio propounded in Keshav Lal's case (supra) by the Division Bench of this Court was completely overlooked. 22. It is necessary at this juncture to examine the scheme of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (for short 'the Act, 1994') in respect of election matters Section 43 of the Act 1994 provides thus - "43. Determination of dispute as to elections. - (1) An election under the Act or the rules make thereunder may be called in question by any candidate at such election by presenting in the prescribed manner to the District Judge having jurisdiction a petition in this behalf on the prescribed grounds and within the prescribed period: Provided that an election petition presented as aforesaid may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, be transferred by the District Judge for hearing and disposal to a Civil judge or Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Subordinate to him. (2) A petition presented under sub-section (1) shall be heard and disposed of in the prescribed manner and the decision of the judge thereon shall be final." (Emphasis supplied) 23. Section 117 of the Act 1994 reads as follows - "117. Bar to interference by Courts in certain matters. (2) A petition presented under sub-section (1) shall be heard and disposed of in the prescribed manner and the decision of the judge thereon shall be final." (Emphasis supplied) 23. Section 117 of the Act 1994 reads as follows - "117. Bar to interference by Courts in certain matters. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act - (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or wards or the allotment of seats to such constituencies or wards made or purporting to be made under this Act, shall not be called in question in any Court; and (b) no election to any Panchayati Raj Institution shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under this Act." (Emphasis supplied) 24. Sub-section (C) of Section 117-A of the Act 1994 provides that "No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or of any decision given by the returning officer or by any other person appointed under this Act in connection with an election." 25. The relevant provisions, which throw light on the intention of the Legislature may be summarised as under - (i) In Section 117(b) of the Act 1994 word 'authority' has been used (An election petition presented to such authority whereas in sub-section (a) of the said Section 117 words 'in any Court' have been mentioned (shall not be called in question in any Court). (ii) Section 117-A completely barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. (iii) No appeal is provided against the decision of election petition by a Judge Section 43(2). (iv) The District Judge or Civil Judge is not made identical with the Civil Court. Under proviso (b) to Rule 85 of the Rules 1994 the Judge shall not required to record evidence in full but shall only make a memorandum thereof sufficient in his opinion for the purpose of deciding the petition. (c) Under sub-rule(2) of Rule 87 of the Rules 1994 the Judge after pronouncing the order upon conclusion of hearing, shall have to send a copy of the order to the District Election Officer (Panchayat) where as no Civil Court is required to send a copy of the order to any authority under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 26. 26. It is thus evident that District Judge having jurisdiction to hear the election petition under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules 1994 is an 'authority' according to Section 117(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act 1994. The decision of this 'authority' cannot be called in question by way of appeal. Provisions contained in Code of Civil Procedure in respect of Civil regular first appeal or misc. appeal, have been excluded and this is nothing in the 'Rules 1994' or 'Act 1994' to indicate that the Judge at the time of hearing the election petition functions as an ordinary Court of Civil Jurisdiction, subordinate to the High Court. The term 'Court' used in various headings of the Rules 1994 is meant only to show that while hearing the election petition the Judge functions as a 'judicial tribunal' and that it is only in that sense that the word seems to have been used. The Judge is not made identical with the Civil Court, otherwise it would have the same powers and privileged as a Civil Court powers to transfer cases provided to the District Judge under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been curtailed and according to proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the Act 1994 the District Judge can transfer election petition to only Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) subordinate to him. Election petition cannot be transferred to the Additional District Judge, who is subordinate to the District Judge for the purposes of transfer of cases under Section 24, CPC. It is therefore, apparent that intention of the Legislature b enacting above noted provisions b the Act 1994 and Rules 1994 was to create 'Election Tribunal' and not the 'Civil Court'. Thus the Judge acting under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules 1994 is a persona designata and his action in dealing with the election petition cannot be revised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Definition of 'Persona designata' as laid down b Central Talkies case (supra) is not applicable to the 'authority' appointed to her the election petition under the Act 1994 and the Rules 1994. Definition of 'Persona designata' as laid down b Central Talkies case (supra) is not applicable to the 'authority' appointed to her the election petition under the Act 1994 and the Rules 1994. In Narain Dutt v. Ibrahim (supra) this Court did not properly construe the provisions of the Act 1994 as well as Rules 1994 and the case of Mod Ram v. Mali Ram , (supra) was distinguished overlooking the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Keshav Dev v. Radhey Shyam (supra). Therefore, Bench of this Court in Keshav Dev v. Radhey Shyam (supra). Therefore, I am unable to follow the views expressed in Narain Dutt v. Ibrahim (supra). 27. In the result the revision petitions are dismissed as not maintainable without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners in pursuing other remedies legally available to them. Interim orders passed by this Court stand vacated. Cost easy.Revision dismissed. *******