SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 832

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
SUMAN DEVI – APPELLANT
Versus
MANISHA DEVI AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO 8337 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 24000 of 2017)
Decided On : 21-08-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 5 and 14 of Limitation Act are not applicable in case of election petition.

Headnote:(a) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 – Section 176 – Sub-section(1) specifying a period of 30 days from the date of the declaration of the results for filing an election petition – No provision for condoning delay or for extending the period of limitation – Section 5 and 14, Limitation Act, 1963 not applicable. (Para 5, 6, 9)

       (1974) 2 SCC 133; (1973) 2 SCC 530; (1999) 8 SCC 532 – Relied upon

       2010(1) PLR 769; 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 408; 2010(4) PLR 718; 2012(2) PLR 831; 2012(3) PLR 541; CR No 523/2013 – Referred

       (b) Code of Civil procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – rejection of plaint – first respondent obviating a decision on rejection of his plaint by withdrawing election petition – court granting liberty to file fresh petition – grant of such liberty cannot obviate the bar of limitation u/s 176, Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994. (Para 9)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant and the first respondent contested elections for the post of Ward Councilor. On 28 January 2016 the appellant was declared to be the elected candidate. On 10 February 2016, the first respondent filed an Election Petition challenging the election of the appellant.

       the appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the petition on the ground that the first respondent had failed to present it in person as required by Section 176. Notice was issued on the application.

       On 1 March 2016, application of the first respondent for withdrawal of the election petition was allowed with liberty to institute a fresh petition.

       On 2 March 2016 the first respondent filed a second election petition. The appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the election petition.

       The Trial Court allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11. The first respondent preferred an appeal which was allowed by the District Judge on 18 January 2017.

       The appellant challenged the order of the District Judge before the High Court. The Civil Revision has been dismissed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Section 5 and 14 of Limitation Act are not applicable in case of election petition.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. The appellant and the first respondent contested elections for the post of Ward Councilor, from Ward No 18 of the District Council of Mahendergarh. The results of election were declared on 28 January 2016. The appellant was declared to be the elected candidate. On 10 February 2016, the first respondent filed an Election Petition namely, Civil Suit 9/2016 (CS 1086/2016) under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 challenging the election of the appellant. Upon service of the election petition, the appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the petition on the ground that the first respondent had failed to present it in person as required by Section 176. Notice was issued on the application. The respondent filed her reply. On 1 March 2016, the first respondent moved an application for withdrawal of the election petition. The application was allowed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on the same day and the first respondent was permitted to withdraw the election petition with liberty to institute a fresh petition. Subsequently on 2 March 2016 the first respondent filed a second election petition, Civil Suit 361/2016(CS 1106/2016). The appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the election petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. An application was thereupon filed by the first respondent purportedly under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act submitting inter alia that if the limitation for filing the election petition had expired, the period spent between the filing of the earlier petition and its withdrawal may be excluded since the first respondent was bona fide espousing her remedies. The appellant opposed the application.

2. By a judgment dated 19 July 2016 the Trial Court allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that the fresh election petition was presented after the expiry of 30 days prescribed for the institution of an election petition. The first respondent preferred an appeal which was allowed by the District Judge, Narnaul on 18 January 2017. The appellant challenged the order of the District Judge before the High Court. The Civil Revision has been dismissed by the impugned order of the High Court dated 11 August 2017. The High Court has observed thus:

“The application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was filed subsequently when petitioner herein raised an objections(sic). Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not provide for filing of a separate application. In any case, now application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act has already been filed, therefore, the irregularity, if any, stand cured.”

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 is a complete code for the presentation and adjudication of election petitions. Counsel submitted that an election petition has to be instituted under Section 176 within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the results of the elections. An election petition which does not comply with Section 176 must be rejected outright. Learned counsel submitted that this view has consistently been followed in several decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to which a reference was made. These are:Joginder Singh v Baldev Singh, 2010(1) PLR 769 paras 6 & 7 Rashpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh v Jasvir Singh, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 408 Chet Ram v State of Punjab, 2010(4) PLR 718 Darshan Singh v Karamjit Singh, 2012(2) PLR 831 Parkasho v Bhola Devi, 2012(3) PLR 541 and Deepa Mangla v Nanak Chand, CR No 523/2013 decided on 06.02.2015.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that a triable case arises against the appellant for submitting a false certificate of Matriculation and hence, the order of the High Court may not be interfered with.

5. Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 provides as follows




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top