Judgment:
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. A suit for permanent Injunction was filed by the petitioner in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Shahpura. The said court invoking the provisions contained in Section 40 of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) forwarded the suit to the court of District Judge, Jaipur District vide order dated November 30, 1996. Against this order present action for filing the revision has been resorted to. During the course of argument, I have been taken through another order dated December 30, 1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur district whereby the case was further transferred to the court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur.
2. It appears from the perusal of the plaint that Muktilal, the present petitioner who was an elected ward member instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction seeking relief against the defendants, restraining them from removing him from the post of ward member. The election of the petitioner was not under challenge by way of election petition but an elected ward member approached the civil court for protecting his civil rights.
3. The civil Judge forwarded the civil suit to the court of District Judge Jaipur District treating it as election dispute under the provisions of Section 40 of the Act.
4. Section 40 of the Act reads as under:
Who shall hear petition-(i) An election petition may be presented to and shall be heard
(a) the District Judge sitting at the place where the municipal office is situated,
(b) where there is no such District Judge, the Civil Judge so sitting, or
(c) any other Judge specially appointed by the State Government for the purpose:
Provided that, where an election petition is presented as aforesaid to a District Judge, he may for reasons to be recorded in writing transfer the same for hearing and disposal to a Civil Judge subordinate to him and sitting at the place where the municipal office is situated.
(2) The District Judge or any other Judge to whom an election petition is presented or transferred and by whom it is heard in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) is hereinafter referred to as the Judge.
5. As already stated, the civil suit filed by the petitioner was not an election petition. It was a suit of injunction simpliciter and learned civil judge was competent to entertain it. It appears that without properly examined the nature of the suit learned civil Judge passed the impugned order. The learned District Judge also committed the same mistake in further transferring the suit to the court of the Additional District Judge.
6. Therefore, I am of the considered view that learned civil judge as well as learned District Judge have committed jurisdictional error in passing the orders dated November 30, 1996 and December 30, 1996. If these orders, are allowed to stand failure of justice would be occasioned.
7. Consequently, I allow this revision and quash the order dated November 30, 1996 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Shahpura, in civil suit No 64/96. Subsequent order dated December 30, 1996 of the learned District Judge Jaipur District, Jaipur also stands revoked. The learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur District Jaipur is directed to remit the case file of civil suit No. 64/96 to the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Shahpura forthwith. Copies of this order shall be forwarded to the court of learned District Judge Jaipur District, learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur, District Jaipur and learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Shahpura. The parties are directed to appear before the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Shahpura on April 15, 1997 and the suit shall proceed in accordance with law. No costs.