P.K.TRIPATHY, J. - (1.)A common question of law has been for consideration relating to maintainability of Civil Revision Petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code as against interlocutory orders passed by the concerned Civil Judges (Junior Division), relating to election dispute under the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act).
(2.)OPPOSITE party No. 1 in Election Misc.Case No. 7 of 2002 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nayagarh has filed the Civil Revision Petition No. 272 of 2002 challenging to the order dated 13.9.2002 passed in that case. It appears from the impugned order that application filed by the election -petitioner (Opposite party No.1 in this revision) to issue a direction to opposite No.3, Block Development Officer, Bhapur to cause production of voters list, ballot papers and counting result -sheets in original for perusal of the Court was considered and allowed by the Court below. Opposite party No.1 in Election Misc. Case No.7 of 2002 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nimpara has filed the Civil Revision Petition No. 303 of 2002 challenging to the order passed by that Court on 11.10.2002. It appears from the impugned order that while disposing of two separate petitions filed by both the parties relating to calling for certain records, counter foil of ballots etc. was considered and the Court below allowed the prayer in part of both the parties. Opposite party No.1 in Election Misc.Case No.24 of 2002 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Jajpur has filed Civil Revision Petition No. 333 of 2002 challenging to the order passed by the Court below on 20.12.2002 rejecting her application for amendment of show -cause on the ground that such amendment is redundant and filed only to delay disposal of the proceeding.
Mr. S.P. Misra, learned counsel appeared for the petitioners in each of the revisions whereas different sets of learned counsel as noted above have appeared for the opposite parties. In each of the cases, learned Additional Government Advocate appeared for the Government Officers who have been added as opposite parties. In each of the cases, at the stage of admission a common question/was raised relating to maintainability of the revisions and in view of that argument has been heard only on the question of maintainability and it has been made clear to the Bar that the Civil Revision Petitions shall be heard on merit if the same shall be found maintainable. Therefore, the present order remains confined only on the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.)MR . B.H. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party in CRP No. 333 of 2002 argued that though the Civil Judge is subordinate to the High Court but the dispute which he undertakes to adjudicate under the Act is as an Election Tribunal and in that respect while passing any order he is not a Court subordinate to the High Court and therefore a Civil Revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code is not competent against such orders but a writ application may be maintainable. In that respect, he refers to and relies on a large number of decisions. But in view of the citations relied on by him relating to the case of Niranjan Sahu v. Narasu Satpathy and others, 35 (1969) C.L.T. 977 there is no necessity to refer to the other citations. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties in the other two Civil Revision Petitions advanced same argument.