"We have given due consideration to these arguments and in order to decide the question set out above it would be necessary to first decide "whether the Munsif or the Civil Judge hearing the election petition functions as a persona designata or as a civil court" . It may be pointed out that rule 83 no doubt lays down that the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (Central Act V of 1908), in regard to suits, shall, in so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in the hearing of the petition, but this does not mean that the Civil Procedure Code would apply to election petitions even with regard to appeals. In our opinion, a plain meaning of this rule only shows that the Munsif or the Civil Judge while trying the election petition should follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same way as that procedure is followed in regard to suits but this procedure is to be followed only in so far as it can be made applicable and that too only in the hearing of the petition. There is nothing in this rule to indicate that the Munsif, at the time of hearing the election petition, functions as an ordinary court of civil jurisdiction subordinate to the District Judge or that an appeal would lie to the District Judge a matter of course. It need hardly be stressed that an appeal is a creature of statute and unless such a right is specifically provided by the law, it cannot be inferred. The Munsif while hearing the election petition may have all the trappings of a court but he cannot be deemed to function as an ordinary civil court. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that in the heading of rules 84 and 85 the term "court" is used and that this indicates that the election tribunal is a civil court. This argument is also not tenable because the term "court" as used in the heading is meant only to show that while hearing the election petition the Munsif or civil
