1. Petitioner has contested the Election from Ward No.6 of Thanisandra, Bangalore East Taluk and she was declared duly elected on 05.04.2010. The result of the election was published in Karnataka Gazette on 16.04.2010. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 also contested the said election, but have lost. The second respondent herein filed Election Petition on 24.05.2010 in E.P.No.22/2010 under Section 33 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976, before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, (CCH-11). On 13.08.2010, the petitioner filed detailed written statement to the Election Petition. She has also filed I.A.No.IV under Order VII Rule-11 (d) of CPC read with Section 33(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976, to reject the Election Petition, as the same was time barred. Section 33 (1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 mandates that the Election petition shall be presented within 30 days from the date of publication of the result of the election.

According to the petitioner, since the election was published in Karnataka Gazette on 16.04.2010, the Election petition ought to have been filed within 30 days from 16.04.2010; since the election petition was filed on 24.05.2010, the same is time barred. The second respondent filed objections to IA No.IV. After hearing, I.A. No.IV was rejected by the Court below, by the impugned order.

2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Limitation Act is not applicable to the Election petitions filed under Section 33 (1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and therefore the second respondent herein ought to have filed Election petition within 30 days from the date of publication of the results of election. It is further argued that the Court below is not justified in taking into account Section 10 of General Clauses Act to conclude that the Election petition cannot be filed during summer vacation before the Court below and therefore the Election petition filed on the reopening day after summer vacation is within the period of limitation.

3. It is no doubt true that sub-section (1) of section 33 mandates that the Election petition shall be presented within 30 days from the date of publication of the result of election under Section 32. Section 32 clarifies that all elections of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and the Counsellors, shall be notified by the Government in the Official Gazette. The matter on hand pertains to the election of the Counsellor. The combined reading of Sections 32 and 33 of the Act makes it clear that the Election petition ought to be filed within 30 days from the date of publication of the result in the Official Gazette. Thus, the second respondent being the election petitioner should have filed Election petition within 30 days from 16.04.2010 (from the date of publication of the result in the Official Gazette).

But the Civil Courts were closed during Summer vacation from 26.04.2010 till 23.05.2010. The notification issued by High Court of Karnataka dated 21.04.2010, reveals that the High Court of Karnataka has designated certain of the judges of the Bangalore City Civil Court mentioned therein as Vacation City Civil Judges for hearing the matters which are required to be immediately and promptly dealt with during summer vacation. It is also mentioned in the notification that Vacation City Civil Judges were directed to dispose of urgent civil matters in which injunction, stay of proceedings and attachment orders etc., sought for during the summer vacation. Thus it is clear that except for the urgent civil matters wherein the order of injunction, stay of proceedings and attachment orders, etc. are required, the City Civil Court, Bangalore, which was closed during summer vacation was not required to entertain the matters. The notification issued by the High Court does not empower the City Civil Court or the vacation judges to receive the Election petitions for consideration. As the last date prescribed for filing of the election p