ORDER : Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the Applicant. Shri H.R. Purohit, learned counsel with Ms. Anushree Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Applicant has filed the present revision under section 26 of the Municipalities Act, 1961 being aggrieved by the order dated 21-9-2016 passed by the learned 4th Addl. District Judge, Badnawar (Camp Court) District-Dhar in Election Petition No. 1-A/15. 3. Facts of the case in short are as under:— The election for the post of President of Municipality, Badnawar was declared on 7-12-2014 and the present applicant was declared as President of the Municipality by the Returning Officer and his election was notified on 22-12-2014. The respondent No. 1, who was defeated in the election has filed the election petition on 16-1-2015 under section 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act (for short ‘The Act’) challenging the election of the present petitioner. The election petition was presented before the Addl. District Judge of first Addl. District Judge, Dhar and vide order dated 3-2-2015, notices were issued to the respondent/present applicant. After notice, the present applicant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the election petition was wrongly presented before the Court, who was not authorized/competent to receive the election petition. Section 20 of the Act clearly provides that election petition is only to be filed before the District Judge or the Addl. District Judge having permanent seat of his Court within the revenue district, in which, such election was held. 4. Vide order dated 21-9-2016, the learned Addl. District Judge has rejected the said application hence the present revision before the Court. Notices were issued in this revision, but stay was not granted and this is informed that till today the election petition is pending. 5. Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance over section 20 of the Municipalities Act which provides that election petition is to be filed before the District Judge or the Addl. District Judge having permanent seat where the election was held. He has placed distribution memo on record, by which, the District Judge, Dhar has distributed the work between Addl. District Judge of Dhar vide order dated 27-12-2014 w.e.f. 1-1-2015. District Judge having permanent seat where the election was held. He has placed distribution memo on record, by which, the District Judge, Dhar has distributed the work between Addl. District Judge of Dhar vide order dated 27-12-2014 w.e.f. 1-1-2015. Under this distribution memo, the District Judge Dhar was also authorized to decide the election petition pertaining to Tehsil-Dahr and Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dhar and Addl. Session Judge, Dhar was authorized to decide the election petition pertaining to the Tehsil-Badnawar. The first Addl. District Judge, Dhar was not authorized to receive the election petition, therefore, such election petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the judgments of Rajendra Singh v. Mahendra Singh Bargahi, reported in 2001 (2) M.P.LJ. 83, Naththuji v. District Judge, Betul, reported in 1982 M.P.LJ. 628 : 1983 JLJ 392 and Babulal v. Dattatraya, reported in 1971 M.P.LJ. 765. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that election petition has rightly been filed before the Addl. District Judge, Dhar, who was competent to receive the election petition under section 20 of the Act and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Election petition are liable to be filed under section 20 of the Act, in which, the election or nomination is called into question. Section 20 of the Act is reproduced below:— 20. Election petitions. — (1) No election or nomination under this Act shall be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this section. Section 20 of the Act is reproduced below:— 20. Election petitions. — (1) No election or nomination under this Act shall 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 he grounds specified in section 22 (a) by any candidate at such election or nomination; or (b)(i) in the case of an election of a councilor, by any voter of the ward concerned; (ii) in the case of a nomination of Councillor, by any Councillor; (iii) in the case of election of President by any voter of the Municipal area; to the District Judge, where such election or nomination 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 nomination 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 (herein after such district Judge or Additional District Judge referred to as Judge). (3) No petition presented under sub-section (2), shall be admitted unless — (i) it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election or nomination was notified in the Gazette; and (ii) it is accompanied by a Government Treasury receipt showing a deposit of two hundred rupees, in the case of election or nomination to Municipal Council and one hundred rupees, in the case of election or nomination to Nagar Panchayat. (4) A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition — (a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election or nomination, as the case may be, of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected or nominated, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. (5) an election petition shall — (a) contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) set forthwith sufficient particulars, the ground or grounds on which the election or nomination is called in question; (c) be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings. 9. According to first part of section 20(2), the election petition may be presented before the District Judge where such election or nomination is held within the revenue district in which the Court of the District Judge is situated. The second part of this sub-section deals with the case where the permanent seat of Addl. District Judge is within the revenue district, in which, the election or nomination was held. The third part deals to a places where there are more than one Addl. District Judge within the revenue District, then election petition would be filed before the Addl. District Judge specified by the District Judge for the said purpose. In the present case, the election petition was filed before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge of second Addl. District Judge, but at present the same is being tried by the 4th Addl. District Judge (Camp Court) Badnawar. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that at present the election petition is pending before Addl. District Judge, who is competent to decide the election petition, but the petition was wrongly presented before the Court having no jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. Mahendra Singh Bargahi, reported in 2001 (2) M.P.LJ. 83, has held that election petition can be presented in the Court of District Judge and for the purpose of its trial and decision, the District Judge is duty bound to transfer the case having a permanent seat at the place where the election or nomination took place. Under the provisions of Civil Court rules, he can assign the Addl. District Judge to entertain and try the election petition and that would be in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Under the provisions of Civil Court rules, he can assign the Addl. District Judge to entertain and try the election petition and that would be in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Para-12 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:— On a reading of the aforesaid passage it is quite vivid that a civil right is to be adjudicated and, therefore, the District Judge has the competency to assign his powers to an Additional District Judge to entertain an election petition. This is permissible for the simple reason that the District Judge or an Additional District Judge is not a persona designata. But we may hasten to add that this assignment or transfer is only permissible as far as the first part is concerned. In respect of second part the District Judge cannot assign his powers to an Additional District Judge who has the permanent seat of his Court within the revenue district in which the election or nomination is held. Scrutinised from the aforesaid angles, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the view taken in the case of Ashok Barman (supra) that the petition challenging the election or selection is to be filed within the revenue district in which the Court of District Judge is situate and it has to be filed before the District Judge alone. At this juncture we may usefully refer to a decision rendered in the case of Rajkumar Shivhare v. Anand Kumar Tiwari, 2000 (3) M.P.LJ. 391 wherein while dealing with M.P. Panchayat (Elections Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 and the M.P. Land Revenue Code it has been held as under: “Under section 122(1)(ii) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, an election petition in case of Janpad Panchayat is to be presented before the Collector. Thus, the Collector has been conferred with the power to decide an election petition under an enactment. In view of section 17(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, an Additional Collector cannot only exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred on the Collector by or under the Code, but he can also exercise the power of the Collector under any other enactment, in case, Collector of the District by his Order in writing directs him to do so. Therefore, the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to hear the election petition in case it is transferred to him. Therefore, the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to hear the election petition in case it is transferred to him. Use of the expression ‘specified officer’ in Rule 11 of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, cannot be construed to mean Collector only. The Rule governs enquiry of all election petitions questioning election to Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat. Hence the expression ‘specified officer’ has been incorporated. From the scheme of the Act and the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the Additional Collector shall be deemed to be a specified Officer in case election petition is transferred to him by the Collector exercising his power under section 17(2) of the Code.” In this context we may usefully refer to a decision rendered in the case of Koushal Prasad Kashyap v. State of M.P., 1999 (1) M.P.L.J. 455 wherein it has been held as under: “The State Government delegated the power of confirmation of the suspension of Sarpanch under section 39(2) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam by notification under section 93 to the ‘Collector’. The delegation is to the holder of the office of the Collector. The Collector is an holder of an office under the M.P. Land Revenue Code and therefore, recourse can be taken to the provisions of the Code. Section 16 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code contains powers to appoint Collector. Section 17 of the Code provides appointment of ‘Additional Collectors’ and sub-section (2) thereof provides that ‘Additional Collectors’ shall exercise such powers, and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a ‘Collector’ by or under this Code or under any other enactment for the time being in force. Subsection (3) provides that while exercising powers under the Code or any other enactment the ‘Additional Collector’ shall be deemed to be Collector. In the notification of delegation the State Government has delegated the power to the ‘Collector’ and the word ‘Collector’ has to be understood from the provisions of the Code. In relation to provision of the Code and also in relation of any other enactment ‘Collector’ would include ‘Additional Collector’ as provided in section 17(2), (3) of the Code. It cannot, therefore, be said that under the notification of delegation the Collector has made any further delegation in favour of Additional Collector. In relation to provision of the Code and also in relation of any other enactment ‘Collector’ would include ‘Additional Collector’ as provided in section 17(2), (3) of the Code. It cannot, therefore, be said that under the notification of delegation the Collector has made any further delegation in favour of Additional Collector. Under the notification of delegation itself, the word ‘Collector’ would include ‘Additional Collector’ in accordance with the work distribution memo, issued under section 17 of the Code”. 11. The election petition is presented under section 20 of the Act, but it is tried under sections 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act. The election petition can be presented before the District Judge as held in the case of Rajendra Prasad (supra) and he can transfer to competent Addl. District Judge. In the present case, at present the trial is pending before the Judge competent to decide the election petition and this fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant. After filing the election petition before the first ADJ, Dhar, now the same is being tried by Camp Court Badnawar where the election was held. 12. In exercise of powers conferred under section 355 read with section 22 of the Act, the election rules have been framed called as M.P. Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 1962 under which the procedure has been prescribed to decide the election petition. Even otherwise, Rule 19(1) prohibits filing of revision against interlocutory order passed by the Judge. The impugned order is interlocutory order, therefore, the present revision under section 26 is also not maintainable. Rule 19 is reproduced below:— 19. Revision. — (1) No petition by way of revision shall lie against any interlocutory order passed by the Judge. (2) At the time of presentation of the petition for revision under subsection (2) of section 26 against the decision of the Judge, the petitioner shall deposit with the High Court a sum of Rs. 250 as security for the costs of the revision. If the provisions of this rule are not complied with the High Court shall dismiss the petition. 13. In view of the above, at present the election petition is being tried by competent Judge, therefore, the learned Addl. District Judge has not committed any error while rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the revision is dismissed in limine.