ORDER Abhay M. Naik, J. 1. This order disposes of Civil Revision No. 95/2010 and Civil Revision No. 96/2010 since they arise from the proceedings challenging common election wherein the revisionist was elected as a President of Nagar Panchayat, Karera, District Shivpuri. 2. Brief relevant facts involved in both the civil revisions are that the election for the post of President of Nagar Panchayat, Karera, District Shivpuri was held in pursuance of the Notification dated 19-11-09. The said post was meant for and reserved for female candidate. Election was held on 14-12-09 and its result was notified vide M.P. Gazette dated 5-1-10. According to it, revisionist was declared as elected on the post of President of Nagar Panchayat, Karera. Smt. Asma (Respondent No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 95/ 10) as well as Smt. Chandra (Respondent No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 96/10) were also candidates in the said election, who were unsuccessful as per the result declared vide the aforesaid Notification. Both the aforesaid unsuccessful candidates presented separate election petitions under Section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act, 1961), to the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri which were numbered as E.P. No. 3/10 and E.P. No. 2/10, respectively. Written statements were submitted in both the election petitions. It was stated as a preliminary objection that there is a permanent seat of the Court of Additional District Judge at Karera and the election petitions ought to have been submitted before such Court. Jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri was thus disputed. A prayer was also made in the preliminary objection that the revisionist was having minor school going children and it would be highly inconvenient for her to attend the dates of hearing of the election petition at Shivpuri. Accordingly, a prayer was made for transferring the election petitions to the Court of Additional District Judge, Karera. 3. Application under Section 24 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure was submitted for transfer of the election petitions from the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri to the Court of Additional District Judge, Karera. It was opposed by the election Petitioner. Learned District Judge, Shivpuri without deciding the application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, transferred the election petitions in administrative capacity to the Additional Judge to the Court of First Addl. District Judge, Shivpuri on 13-7-10. It was opposed by the election Petitioner. Learned District Judge, Shivpuri without deciding the application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, transferred the election petitions in administrative capacity to the Additional Judge to the Court of First Addl. District Judge, Shivpuri on 13-7-10. After such transfer, the Transferee Court dismissed the application under Section 24, Code of Code of Civil Procedure because it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under the provisions of Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Thereafter, another application under Section 24, Code of Code of Civil Procedure was submitted before the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri on identical grounds. It was opposed by the election Petitioner on both the counts. Learned District Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 10-8-10, hence the present revision petitions. 5. Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate on behalf of the revisionist and Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 1 made their respective submissions, which have been duly considered in the succeeding paragraphs. 6. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties that the election in question is in respect of the post of President of Nagar Panchayat, Karera where a permanent seat of the Court of ADJ does exist: This being-so, it is contended by Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate that in view of Section 20 of the said Act, 1961, the Court of ADJ, at Karera alone has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the election petition. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Narbada Prasad v. Chhaganlal and Ors. 1969 JLJ 441, it is contended that when the forum of the Court of Additional District Judge having permanent seat is prescribed, no other forum may be invoked. Consequently, the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri has no jurisdiction and the application under Section 24, Code of Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been allowed. Eventually, it is contended in the alternative that in view of Section 20 of the said Act, 1961, District Judge, Shivpuri himself or the Permanent Court of Additional District Judge, at Karera alone may entertain and decide the election petition. The District Judge, Shivpuri could not have legally transferred the election petition to the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Shivpuri. The District Judge, Shivpuri could not have legally transferred the election petition to the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Shivpuri. Reliance for this purpose is placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. Mahendra Singh Bargahi 2001 (2) MPLJ 82 . 7. At this juncture, I feel it appropriate to reproduce the relevant Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the said Act, 1961: "20. Election Petitions.- (1) No election or selection under this Act be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (2) Such petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 22- (a) by any candidate at such election or selection; or (b) (i) in the case of an election of a Councillor, by any voter of the ward concerned; (ii) in the case of a nomination of Councillor, by any Councillor; to the District Judge, where such election or selection is held within the Revenue District in which the Court of the District Judge is situate, and in any other case, to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the Revenue District in which such election or selection is held and if there be more than one such Additional District Judge within the said Revenue District, to such one of them as the District Judge may specify for the purpose (hereinafter such District Judge or Additional District Judge referred to as Judge). Perusal of the aforesaid goes to show that Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) enables any candidate at such election or selection to present election petition on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 22 of the Act. Later portion of Sub-section (2) provides the forum before which the election petition may be presented. According to it, it may be presented to the District Judge where such election or selection is held within the Revenue District in which the Court of the District judge is situated and in any other case, to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the Revenue District in which such election or selection is held. The words "and in any other case" are quite significant and important. The words "and in any other case" are quite significant and important. Legislature by inserting such words has made its intention clear that an election petition may be presented to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the Revenue District in which such election or selection is held, only if presentation may not be made to the District Judge where such election or selection is held within the Revenue District in which the Court of District Judge is situated. Thus, the election petition cannot be legally presented to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court when the forum of District Judge as per the earlier portion, is available to the election Petitioner. 8. Undisputably, Karera falls within the Revenue District, of Shivpuri where the Court of District Judge is situated. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of M.P. Civil Courts Act, 1958, lays down that for the purpose of this Act, a Revenue District notified by the State Government shall also be the Civil District. Proviso to it, empowers the State Government, on the recommendation of the High Court, to alter the limits or number of such Civil Districts or create new Civil Districts. Clause (a) of Section 5 mandates that the State Government shall establish the Court of District Judge for each Civil District. By virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 3, every Court of District Judge is to be presided over by a District Judge to be appointed by the High Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the said Act, 1961 on conjoint reading with the aforesaid provisions of the M.P. Civil Courts Act, 1958 clearly suggests that where election or selection is held within the Revenue District in which the Court of the District Judge is situated, the election petition is to be necessarily presented to the District Judge alone. In other words, if the Court of District Judge alone. In other words, if the Court of District Judge is not situated in the Revenue District in which the election or selection is held, the election petition may be presented to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the Revenue District in which such election or selection is held. Such a situation may arise when the election or selection is held at a place which falls within different Revenue District and Civil District. Such a situation may arise when the election or selection is held at a place which falls within different Revenue District and Civil District. I may successfully quote M.P. Gazette Notification dated 1-5-09, which reads as under: Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extra Ordinary) Law and Legislative Affairs Deptt. Bhopal Bhopal, dated 1-5-2009 No. 2052-F1-2-2009-XXI-B (One).- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 (No. 19 of 1958) and in supersession of all previous Notification issued in this behalf, the State Government, on the recommendation of the High Court, hereby, declares that with effect from the 15th May, 2009, the State of Madhya Pradesh shall stand divided into the following forty five Civil Districts as specified in column (2) of the Table below comprising the Revenue Districts as shown in column (3) of the said table against each Civil District namely: TABLE S. No. Civil District Revenue District (1) (2) (3) 1. Ashoknagar Ashoknagar 2. Balaghat Balaghat 3. Barwani Barwani 4. Betul Betul 5. Bhind Bhind 6. Bhopal Bhopal 7. Burhanpur Burhanpur 8. Chhatarpur Chhatarpur 9. Chhindwara Chhindwara 10. Damoh Damoh 11. Datia Datia 12. Dewas Dewas 13. Dhar Dhar 14. East Nimar (Khandwa) Easter Nimar (Khandwa) 15. Guna Guna 16. Gwalior Gwalior 17. Harda Harda 18. Hoshangabad Hoshangabad 19. Indore Indore 20. Jabalpur Jabalpur 21. Jhabua Jhabua & Alirajpur 22. Katani Katani 23. Mandla Mandla & Dindori 24. Mandsaur Mandsaur 25. Morena Morena 26. Narsinghpur Narsinghpur 27. Neemuch Neemuch 28. Panna Panna 29. Raisen Raisen 30. Rajgarh Rajgarh except Sarangpur Tehsil 31. Ratlam Ratlam 32. Rewa Rewa 33. Sagar Sagar 34. Satna Satna 35. Sehore Sehore 36. Seoni Seoni 37. Shahdol Shahdol, Annuppur & Umaria 38. Shajapur Shajapur & Sarangpur Tehsil of Rajgarh Revenu Distt. 39. Sheopur Sheopur 40. Shivpuri Shivpuri 41. Sidhi Sidhi & Singroli Head Quarter Waidhan 42. Teekamgarh Teekamgarh 43. Ujjain Ujjain 44. Vidisha Vidisha 45. West Nimar (Mandleshwar) West Nimar (Khargone) Aforesaid Gazette Notification makes it clear that it is not always necessary that Civil District and Revenue District must be common. Illustratively, in the Revenue District of Dindori (S.N. 23), Court of District Judge is not situated but it is situated in District Mandla. Similarly, in the Revenue District of Annuppur and Umaria at S. No. 37 of the Gazette Notification, no Court of District Judge is situated. Illustratively, in the Revenue District of Dindori (S.N. 23), Court of District Judge is not situated but it is situated in District Mandla. Similarly, in the Revenue District of Annuppur and Umaria at S. No. 37 of the Gazette Notification, no Court of District Judge is situated. In such cases, when the place of election and selection is within the particular Revenue District having no Court of District Judge in the same Revenue District, the election petition may be presented to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the Revenue District in which such election or selection is held. Clause (b) of Rule 2 of M.P. Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 defines Judge in the following manner: 2. Definition.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) *** *** *** (b) 'Judge' means the District Judge, where the election or selection of Councillors is held within the Revenue District in which the Court of the District Judge is situate, and in any other case, the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the Revenue District in which such election or selection is held and if there be more than one such Additional District Judge within the said Revenue District, such one of them as the District Judge may specify for the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 20. By virtue of Section 22 of the said Act, 1961 if the Judge is of the opinion that any of the grounds mentioned therein does exist, he shall declare the election or nomination of the returned candidate to be void. Considering the definition contained in Rule 2 (b) of the M.P. Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 and further the functions of such Judge, it has been held by the Full Bench of this Court that the jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge under Section 20 of the said Act, 1961 is as the Presiding Officer of an established Court and not as a persona designata. I may successfully quote the following passage from the Full Bench decision in the case of Babulal v. Dattatraya and Ors. I may successfully quote the following passage from the Full Bench decision in the case of Babulal v. Dattatraya and Ors. 1971 MPLJ 765: The combined effect of the abovesaid three decisions of the Supreme Court is that when a statute confers authority on a Judicial Officer, one should be slow in saying that the Legislature confers such authority on the said Judicial Officer as a persona designata, especially when a persona designata is "a person who is pointed our or described as an individual as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of class or as filling a particular character". It is from this point of view that the provisions of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, and the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958, must be considered. Now, in this State the Civil District and the Revenue District are not co-extensive. In certain cases, two or more Revenue Districts are included in the same Civil District. In Conferring Authority on the District Judge regarding election petitions arising from the Revenue District where he holds his office while conferring similar authority on the Additional District Judge where he holds his Court in another Revenue District the idea is to confine the disposal of the election petitions within the Geographical Area comprised in a Revenue District. The idea appears to be to save the parties from unnecessary expenditure of going to long distances to get the dispute settled. Only because two distinct authorities are mentioned in Section 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, the conclusion is not justified that the authority is conferred on them as persona designata. The District Judge or the Additional District Judge is referred in that section as a Judge, that is to say, a person holding a Judicial Office and the reference cannot be said to be a reference to a persona designata as indicated above. 9. Since the election in question was held in Karera which falls within the district of Shivpuri having the Court of District Judge, this Court holds that the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri has jurisdiction to entertain and decide election petition. 9. Since the election in question was held in Karera which falls within the district of Shivpuri having the Court of District Judge, this Court holds that the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri has jurisdiction to entertain and decide election petition. Although, reliance has been placed on the Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kamar Lal v. Gore Lal 1987 (II) MPWN SN 158, to contend that the District Judge trying election petition is not a Civil Court but he acts as persona designata, this Court shall have to ignore it in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Babulal (supra), wherein contrary view was already taken long back which was not considered by the learned Single Judge. 10. Further contention of learned Senior Counsel, Shri Gupta is that the election petition ought to have been entertained by the District Judge, Shivpuri himself or it ought to have been transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, having the permanent seat in view of the language of Section 20 of the Act. According to him, it could not have been transferred to the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Shivpuri. This submission has already been answered long back by the Full Bench in the case of Babulal (supra), wherein the following observations was made in Paragraph 7 after examining the scope of Section 20 of the said Act, 1961 as well as Section 7 of the M.P. Civil Courts Act, 1958: 7. It is, no doubt, true that under Section 3 of the M.P. Civil Courts Act the Court of the District Judge and the Court of the Additional District Judge are different classes of Courts and an Additional District Judge is not an adjunct of the Court of the District Judge. But from the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act it would appear that the Additional District Judge is not allotted any function of his own. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 provides that an Additional District Judge shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge, including the functions of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which the District Judge may, by general or special order, assign to him and in the discharge of such functions he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. From this provision it is clear that an Additional District Judge is a delegate of the powers entrusted to him by the District Judge and in the case of such delegation he exercises all the powers of the District Judge, including those of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. It thus follows that any statutory jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge and also be exercised by the Additional District Judge if the same is entrusted to him by the District Judge.... 11. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad (supra), has also observed in Paragraph 15: 15... We hereby clarify that as far as the first part of Section 20 is concerned, the District Judge has the jurisdiction to entertain the election petition, and therefore, in exercise of statutory powers conferred on him under M.P. Civil Courts Act he can assign the Additional District Judge to entertain and try the election petition. 12. In the result, I do not find any infirmity jurisdictionally or otherwise in the impugned order. Ex consequenti, both the civil revisions are hereby dismissed however, with no order as to costs.