MOIDEEN MEERA SAHIB Vs. CRUZ MICHAEL FERNANDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been presented against the order of the District Munsif of Srivaikundam in O.P. No. 346 of 1925, which comprised an enquiry under the rules relating to election disputes. The election in question was to Ward No. 10 of the Union Board of Alwarthirunagari. There were three candidates, the petitioner, the respondent and one Alagapiran Aiyangar. Of the 35 voters, 29 cast their votes, 15 in favour of the present petitioner and 14 in favour of the respondent, the third candidate getting no vote at all. The petitioner was accordingly declared elected, whereupon the respondent filed this petition before the District Court objecting to the election. The learned District Judge issued summons to some of the witnesses, actually examined one witness and allowed certain documents to be filed and then transferred the case for disposal to the District Munsif of Srivaikundam. Some of the witnesses whom it was desired to examine were said to be absent in Colombo and the respondent applied for a commission, which was objected to by the petitioner but was granted and was returned executed in due course. Subsequently the petitioner, alleging, it is said, that being a Village Munsif he was unable to spare time then for the enquiry and that he had no facilities for examining the witnesses on commission, asked that they should be summoned to appear in person or that a second commission should be issued. There had been a great deal of delay very largely due to the petitioner's own fault in the conduct of this enquiry and the District Munsif refused to grant an adjournment for this purpose and proceeded to dispose of the petition, finding that in the case of three votes instanced by the respondent the voters must have been impersonated. He accordingly passed an order unseating the petitioner and directing that the respondent should be declared to have been elected.

(2.) The first objection raised to this order in revision is that the Court should have granted the adjournment asked for. I do not think that there is any substance in the contention that the petitioner as Village Munsif was precluded from attending to the case. It has not even been alleged before me that he put in a formal application for leave to the Revenue authorities and that it was refused. It appears that the election took place as far back as the 27 May, 1925, and the District Munsif's order was not passed until the 6 of August, 1926. I think that he was fully justified in bringing the proceedings to an end under the circumstances.

(3.) The next point has to do with the action taken by the learned District Judge in transferring the case after it had been partly heard by him. It is said that in so doing he acted ultra vires and that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to take up the enquiry and conclude it, whether or not he would have been competent to have tried it de novo upon its transfer to him. Under Sub-rule 3 of Rule 4 of the Rules for the Conduct of Enquiries and Decision of Disputes relating to Elections "a District Judge or Subordinate Judge may, in the case of Union Board elections, direct any Court subordinate to him to hold the enquiry.