JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The appellant, being the writ petitioner, has filed this intra-Court appeal against the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26291 of 2013 confirming the orders dated 7.10.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam in Election Appeal No. 2 of 2013 and dated 31.01.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Digapahandi in Election Petition No. 4 of 2012 holding that the election of the appellant to the office of Sarpanch of Dayanidhipur Grama Panchayat in the district of Ganjam is bad in law since it violates Section 25(1)(v) read with Section 31 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act 1964. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that pursuant to a declaration for holding tire Panchayatraj election by the State Election Commissioner, the Election Officer issued notification inviting nominations from the deserving candidates for election of Sarpanch of Dayanidhipur Gram Panchayat constituency in between 07.01.2012 and 12.01.2012. Accordingly the appellant as well as respondent no.1 filed their nominations on 7.1.2012 for the office of Sarpanch of the Dayanidhipur Gram Panchayat constituency under Sanakhemundi Block. After scrutiny of the nomination papers, the appellant and the respondent no.1 were allotted election symbols, but the respondent no.1 raised objection with regard to the nomination of the appellant as he has more than two children after the date of commencement of the Orissa Gram Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1994 as per the provisions of Section 25(1)(v) of the said Act. It is further stated that the appellant has two sons, namely, Balaram Jena, who was born on 10.03.1996 and Kalu Charan Jena who was born on 21.03.1998. Balaram is prosecuting his studies in +2 in Pochilima College while Kalu Charan is studying in Class IX in Alarigada Panchayat High School. The third female child, Sibani Jena, was born on 25.01.1999 and prosecuting her study in class VII. At the time of submission of the nomination and more so, the third child having been born after the cut-off date, the appellant incurs disqualification as per the provisions of Section 25(1)(v) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1994. Accepting the nomination on 13.1.2012, and over ruling the objection raised by respondent no.1 on 11.02.2012, election was held on 21.02.2012. Accepting the nomination on 13.1.2012, and over ruling the objection raised by respondent no.1 on 11.02.2012, election was held on 21.02.2012. Since the appellant was allowed to participate in the election itself in spite of the objection raised by respondent no.1, after he was elected to the said office, respondent no.1 raised election dispute under Sections 30 and 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act by presenting a properly constituted application before the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi registered as Election Petition No. 4 of 2012 seeking declaration of election of the appellant as Sarpanch of Dayanidhipur Gram Panchayat void as he has incurred disqualification. 3. Though the election petition was filed before the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi but it was heard by the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi. On examining the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi allowed the Election Petition and declared that the appellant is disqualified to hold the post of Sarpanch of Dayanidhipur Gram Panchayat vide order dated 31.01.2013 and directed the Election Officer to hold fresh election. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Election Appeal No.02 of 2013. The lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 07.10.2013 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirmed the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi. Against the said order, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 26291 of 2013 before this Court and the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 15.10.2015 did not feel inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi which has been confirmed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Annexures-1 & 3 respectively to the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition confirming the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the election petition cannot be heard by the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi as the Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain such application in view of the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act. Therefore, the judgment so rendered by the Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi, who has no jurisdiction, is a nullity in the eye of law. Division), Digapahandi as the Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain such application in view of the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act. Therefore, the judgment so rendered by the Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi, who has no jurisdiction, is a nullity in the eye of law. Apart from the same, it is contended that no evidence of third child having been produced, the learned Courts below have come to an erroneous finding and declared the election of the appellant under Section 25(1)(v) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1994 void, which is an error apparent on the face of record and therefore, he seeks for interference of this Court. 5. Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no.1 raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this appeal and further contended that if there is no Civil Judge, (Jr. Division) available in the territorial jurisdiction itself, it is only the Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division) having jurisdiction over the same who can entertain the application. It is further urged that if the fact finding Courts have already held that the appellant has a third child after the cut-off date concurrently, in that case this Court should not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below with regard to the third child of the appellant. Accordingly, the same should not be interfered with. 6. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, the following questions emerge for consideration. (i) Whether the writ appeal is maintainable? (ii) Whether the Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi has territorial jurisdiction to hear the Election Petition. (iii) Whether this Court can interfere with the appeal at this stage when both the facts finding Courts below on the basis of the evidence (both oral and documentary) have held that the appellant incurs disqualification in view of the provisions of Section 25(1)(v) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1994? Question No.(i) 7. The question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal has been considered elaborately by this Court in W.A. No. 222 of 2016 (Saswati Patra Vs. Saraswati Biswal and others) disposed of on 16.05.2016. Question No.(i) 7. The question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal has been considered elaborately by this Court in W.A. No. 222 of 2016 (Saswati Patra Vs. Saraswati Biswal and others) disposed of on 16.05.2016. This Court has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat and others, (2015) 9 SCC 1 , wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 45 held as follows : “45. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to summarise our conclusions as follows: 45.1. Whether a letters patent appeal would lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge that has travelled to him from the other tribunals or authorities, would depend upon many a facet. The court fee payable on a petition to make it under Article 226 or Article 227 or both, would depend upon the rules framed by the High Court. 45.2. The order passed by the civil court is only amenable to be scrutinised by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is different from Article 226 of the Constitution and as per the pronouncement in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 , no writ can be issued against the order passed by the civil court and, therefore, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable. 45.3. The writ petition can be held to be not maintainable if a tribunal or authority that is required to defend the impugned order has not been arrayed as a party, as it is a necessary party. 45.4. The tribunal being or not being party in a writ petition is not determinative of the maintainability of a letters patent appeal.” 8. Referring to the same principle, this Court in Saswati Patra (Supra) considering the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, 1991, has already held that intra-Court appeal is maintainable. 9. Applying the same principle to the present context, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the writ appeal is maintainable. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by respondent no.1 that the writ appeal is not maintainable fails and question no.(i) is answered accordingly. Question No.(ii) 10. Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant raised an objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by respondent no.1 that the writ appeal is not maintainable fails and question no.(i) is answered accordingly. Question No.(ii) 10. Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant raised an objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi. As it appears from the provisions contained in Section 31(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, election petition shall be presented before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) having jurisdiction over the place at which the office of the Grama Sasan is situated. Sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Orissa Civil Courts Act, 1984 provides: “The Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) shall include the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division)” There is no dispute that judicial Magistrate of First Class, Digapahandi has been vested with the power of Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), vide Notification of the Law Department of the Government of Orissa dated 10.08.2005. As the Court of Civil Judge, (Jr. Division) includes the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division) under Sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Orissa Civil Courts Act, 1984, the said Court having territorial jurisdiction, the Election Petition presented before the said Court can be considered as valid and justified as he has discharged the duties of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) having territorial jurisdiction over the same. Similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs. Raghab Chandra Bhoi, 2009 (1) CLR 550 wherein, this Court held as follows:- “8. On an analysis of Section 31 of the Act quoted above, it would be clear that not only that the election petition is prescribed to be filed before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), but it is also necessary that he concerned Grama Sasan in respect of which the election dispute is raised, must be situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Civil Judge (Jr. Division). Since in the instant case, the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bolangir, who passed the impugned order, has no territorial jurisdiction over the concerned grama sasan, he cannot exercise jurisdiction in deciding the election dispute. The Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division). Since in the instant case, the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bolangir, who passed the impugned order, has no territorial jurisdiction over the concerned grama sasan, he cannot exercise jurisdiction in deciding the election dispute. The Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Loisinga under whose territorial jurisdiction the concerned Grama Sasan is situated, can only have jurisdiction to entertain and try the election dispute and for this limited purpose, the classes of Civil Courts as mentioned in the Orissa Civil Courts Act shall come into play and the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Loisinga shall be construed to be the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), for the purpose of Section 31 of the Act.” 11. Taking into consideration the provisions contained in the Orissa Civil Courts Act read with the ratio decided in Ashok Kumar Sahu(Supra), this Court unhesitatingly holds that the Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Digapahandi has jurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition under Section 31 of the Gram Panchayat Act. Thus, question No (ii) is answered accordingly. Question No. (iii) 12. The fact finding Courts below having taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties have come to a definite conclusion that Sibani Jena is the daughter of the returned candidate, Rabindranath Jena, being his third child and her date of birth is 25.01.1999 and the third child having been born after the commencement of the Orissa Gram Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1994, the appellant incurs disqualification under Sub-section (1)(v) of Section 25 of the said Act. The findings arrived at by both the Courts below having not been dislodged at any point of time and the same being concurrent findings of fact, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same unless palpable irregularity has been indicated by the appellant. More so, the appellant having failed to show any palpable irregularity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below concurrently. Thus, question No.(iii) is answered accordingly. 13. More so, the appellant having failed to show any palpable irregularity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below concurrently. Thus, question No.(iii) is answered accordingly. 13. At this point of time it has been brought to the notice of the Court that during pendency of this intra-Court appeal, the State Election Commission, Odisha has issued a notification on 30.04.2016 in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 243K of the Constitution of India, read with Section 16 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 and Rule 85(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965 fixing the date and time for the by-election in respect of Sarpanches and Ward Members and accordingly the election process having been started, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the same at this stage. It is well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64 , that once the election process has started, the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the same. This view of the Apex Court having been consistently followed till date and in view of the notification issued by the State Election Commission on 30.04.2016, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the process of election to the office of Sarpanch, Dayanidhipur Gram Panchayat. 14. Considering the facts from all angles as discussed above, we find no merit in this intra-Court Appeal both factually and legally warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.