Exclusive statutory tribunal jurisdiction bars civil suit challenging municipal election validity under the Municipal Act.

The right asserted arose entirely under the Municipal Act and depended on whether the election was valid. Because the Act created a statutory mechanism for challenging election validity before the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, made that order conclusive, and deemed unchallenged elections valid, the tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the foundational facts. The general civil jurisdiction was excluded by necessary implication, so a civil suit could not entertain the challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the municipal election when the Municipal Act provided a special tribunal and declared its order conclusive.

Analysis: The right asserted by the plaintiff arose entirely under the Municipal Act and depended on whether no councillor had been elected. The Act prescribed a special mechanism under Section 33 for questioning the validity of any election and vested that function in the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court. The Chief Judge was empowered to inquire into the validity of the election, his order was made conclusive, and elections not questioned in the prescribed manner were deemed valid. In such a statutory scheme, the tribunal created by the Act had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the foundational facts on which the right depended. The general jurisdiction of civil courts was excluded by necessary implication because the suit sought to raise an issue which the Act required to be decided only by the statutory tribunal.

Conclusion: The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the plaintiff's challenge lay exclusively before the tribunal constituted by the Municipal Act.

---